Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

DonExodus2

2011-03-13T16:28:42Z

JohnLee:

'''DonExodus2''' is an evolutionary biologist and popular [[YouTube]] [[evolution|evolutionist]]. At the time his channel was created, he was a Christian,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXxFapw5GM</ref> but recently deconverted to [[atheism|atheist]]. DonExodus2 pulled out of his debate with a YouTube [[creationism|creationist]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z22kmGpq6A</ref> The YouTube [[Christian]] [[shockofgod]] quipped that he [[evolution|evolved]] into a chicken.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z22kmGpq6A</ref>

Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>
== See also ==
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] ('''large collection''' of comedy/satire concerning [[atheism]] and [[evolution]])
*[[AronRa]]
*[[Thunderf00t]]
*[[Matt Dillahunty]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 DonExodus2 YouTube channel]
*[http://www.blogtv.com/people/DonExodus2 DonExodus2 BlogTV.com]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Shockofgod]]

Talk:Haeckel diagrams

2010-11-20T21:03:41Z

JohnLee: Created page with "In my high school biology course, the argument that animal fetuses are evidence for common descent was used, but the Haeckel diagrams were ''not'' used; actual photos of fetuses ..."

In my high school biology course, the argument that animal fetuses are evidence for common descent was used, but the Haeckel diagrams were ''not'' used; actual photos of fetuses were in the book, which indicated the same relationships that Haeckel envisioned. --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 16:03, 20 November 2010 (EST)

User:JohnLee

2010-11-09T03:05:34Z

JohnLee:

I will do my best to contribute to this site in an open-minded and civil manner.

== My Current Beliefs ==

*I am a Catholic-Christian, as I was raised.

*I oppose gun control, believing it to be a violation of the second amendment.

*I currently accept the theory of evolution as explaining the origin of species (but not the origin of ''life''); however I welcome any attempts to convince me otherwise.

*I don't think very highly of the idea of Welfare, believing it to discourage working.

I felt the need to state these positions because, in case I ever get into a discussion about them on this site, I wanted it to be known where I stand.

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2010-10-13T02:07:57Z

JohnLee: /* Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate */

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

:''Answer'': This is a loaded question, and entirely subjective. This debate will not evolve coherently, since not all memebers of this discussion find "evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing". --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

==Because your religion demands it==
The Humanist religion demands that you adopt the faith of evolution. I see everyone of that faith has chimed in together on that issue. That's good for you then. For the rest of us non-believers are yet to see any, and I mean any convincing evidence. Still only a theory, and always will be. Except for those of you with greater faith then me of course. Non-theistic religions need a lot of that too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, why so cold? :-)

It seems as if your response to everything regarding evolution and related is "Bah, humanists!" However, there's never any warranted argument there, or perhaps I am missing it. All you say is "I'm not convinced!" Could that be because ''your'' religion demands that you believe in Creationism? Sounds like a personal problem. ;-) Seriously, though, the point of Evolution is that it seeks proof. This is at odds with your claim that evolution is part of the "Humanist Religion" [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 20:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Humanism is a type of religion, even if it does not have churches. In order to be a humanist, or a secular progressive, one has to accept all there beliefs. You obviously do. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe if people would attempt to read any of the Humanist Manifestos floating around they could possibly understand the direct correlation between Humanism and evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is because they are too cold to care and just say bah, Judeo-Christians! Easier just to accuse others of having a personal problem with an idea then to use any critical thinking on the subject. Here's a clue to it: Humanism rejects the spiritual realm as denoted by their manifesto and so does the 150+ year old theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::FOOTNOTES- Humanist Manifestos I,II,2000,Amsterdam Declaration. All are available for reading through any search engine.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

==Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate==

These debates are silly as there are very few footnotes backing up assertions. I suggest creating some noteworthy articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

They are only silly if you adamantly oppose one view point in favor of the other. It will not matter how many foot notes one provides, you will not look them up for your mind is made up in the matter.

Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes evolution convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the creation/intelligent design camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view.

{{unsigned|Jbw224}} (November 2007)

Evolution is far from being proven. What is this convincing evidence? Some peppered moths changing colour. That sounds like reproduction according to its own kind to me. And fossils of extinct animals / dinosaurs? These 'scientists' will consider any mass extinction theory, except the one written about in the Bible. The evolution fantasy is clearly a theory, which is unbelievable, flawed and unprovable. Adam

Evolution is a fantasy? I'm sorry, but at least it is something we can observe in some way or another with our own eyes, unlike your god. Chris
: Oh? How many creatures or plants have you seen evolve into quite different creatures or plants? Answer please. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

: (paraphrasing Jbw224): Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes creation convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the evolution camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

It's funny about your so called authoritative voices in the scientific community that you mention are nearly all of them religious fundamentalists themselves...or at least funded by the Disc Institute, a religious think tank. If you want to "teach the controversy" then you can also teach holocaust denying, because there are plenty of "academics" who don't believe in the holocaust either.

Evolution, like the existence of the holocaust, is strongly supported by evidence. Those who believe otherwise hasn't published a single article and submitted it for peer revision in the realm of academics.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
: Please justify your claim of the persons concerned being "fundamentalists". And of them being funded by the Discovery Institute.
: Also please justify your claim that there are "plenty" of academics who don't believe in the holocaust.
: Your assertions that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence is disputed by many people. Your claim that those that believe otherwise haven't published a single peer-reviewed article is absolutely false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :) --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 21:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
::Also, there are several instances of this happening outside of the above speculation. Take, for example, viruses. By the time flue season comes along, the flu vaccine that we used last year no longer works. This is because, in that year, the virus has mutated so many times (microorganisms reproduce much quicker than larger organisms) that it is essentially a different species of virus, and therefore it is immune to the innoculation that was designed for the old virus. After years of this, that virus would be even more different. HIV evolves resistance to drugs so quickly that they are practically useless.
::FOOTNOTES:[http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm Viruses, Vaccines, and evolution of Influenza]
::[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html Evolution and AIDS]--[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 22:07, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2010-10-13T01:55:45Z

JohnLee: /* Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate */

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

:''Answer'': This is a loaded question, and entirely subjective. This debate will not evolve coherently, since not all memebers of this discussion find "evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing". --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

==Because your religion demands it==
The Humanist religion demands that you adopt the faith of evolution. I see everyone of that faith has chimed in together on that issue. That's good for you then. For the rest of us non-believers are yet to see any, and I mean any convincing evidence. Still only a theory, and always will be. Except for those of you with greater faith then me of course. Non-theistic religions need a lot of that too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, why so cold? :-)

It seems as if your response to everything regarding evolution and related is "Bah, humanists!" However, there's never any warranted argument there, or perhaps I am missing it. All you say is "I'm not convinced!" Could that be because ''your'' religion demands that you believe in Creationism? Sounds like a personal problem. ;-) Seriously, though, the point of Evolution is that it seeks proof. This is at odds with your claim that evolution is part of the "Humanist Religion" [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 20:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Humanism is a type of religion, even if it does not have churches. In order to be a humanist, or a secular progressive, one has to accept all there beliefs. You obviously do. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe if people would attempt to read any of the Humanist Manifestos floating around they could possibly understand the direct correlation between Humanism and evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is because they are too cold to care and just say bah, Judeo-Christians! Easier just to accuse others of having a personal problem with an idea then to use any critical thinking on the subject. Here's a clue to it: Humanism rejects the spiritual realm as denoted by their manifesto and so does the 150+ year old theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::FOOTNOTES- Humanist Manifestos I,II,2000,Amsterdam Declaration. All are available for reading through any search engine.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

==Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate==

These debates are silly as there are very few footnotes backing up assertions. I suggest creating some noteworthy articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

They are only silly if you adamantly oppose one view point in favor of the other. It will not matter how many foot notes one provides, you will not look them up for your mind is made up in the matter.

Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes evolution convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the creation/intelligent design camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view.

{{unsigned|Jbw224}} (November 2007)

Evolution is far from being proven. What is this convincing evidence? Some peppered moths changing colour. That sounds like reproduction according to its own kind to me. And fossils of extinct animals / dinosaurs? These 'scientists' will consider any mass extinction theory, except the one written about in the Bible. The evolution fantasy is clearly a theory, which is unbelievable, flawed and unprovable. Adam

Evolution is a fantasy? I'm sorry, but at least it is something we can observe in some way or another with our own eyes, unlike your god. Chris
: Oh? How many creatures or plants have you seen evolve into quite different creatures or plants? Answer please. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

: (paraphrasing Jbw224): Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes creation convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the evolution camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

It's funny about your so called authoritative voices in the scientific community that you mention are nearly all of them religious fundamentalists themselves...or at least funded by the Disc Institute, a religious think tank. If you want to "teach the controversy" then you can also teach holocaust denying, because there are plenty of "academics" who don't believe in the holocaust either.

Evolution, like the existence of the holocaust, is strongly supported by evidence. Those who believe otherwise hasn't published a single article and submitted it for peer revision in the realm of academics.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
: Please justify your claim of the persons concerned being "fundamentalists". And of them being funded by the Discovery Institute.
: Also please justify your claim that there are "plenty" of academics who don't believe in the holocaust.
: Your assertions that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence is disputed by many people. Your claim that those that believe otherwise haven't published a single peer-reviewed article is absolutely false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :) --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 21:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2010-10-13T01:53:58Z

JohnLee: /* Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate */

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

:''Answer'': This is a loaded question, and entirely subjective. This debate will not evolve coherently, since not all memebers of this discussion find "evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing". --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

==Because your religion demands it==
The Humanist religion demands that you adopt the faith of evolution. I see everyone of that faith has chimed in together on that issue. That's good for you then. For the rest of us non-believers are yet to see any, and I mean any convincing evidence. Still only a theory, and always will be. Except for those of you with greater faith then me of course. Non-theistic religions need a lot of that too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, why so cold? :-)

It seems as if your response to everything regarding evolution and related is "Bah, humanists!" However, there's never any warranted argument there, or perhaps I am missing it. All you say is "I'm not convinced!" Could that be because ''your'' religion demands that you believe in Creationism? Sounds like a personal problem. ;-) Seriously, though, the point of Evolution is that it seeks proof. This is at odds with your claim that evolution is part of the "Humanist Religion" [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 20:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Humanism is a type of religion, even if it does not have churches. In order to be a humanist, or a secular progressive, one has to accept all there beliefs. You obviously do. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe if people would attempt to read any of the Humanist Manifestos floating around they could possibly understand the direct correlation between Humanism and evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is because they are too cold to care and just say bah, Judeo-Christians! Easier just to accuse others of having a personal problem with an idea then to use any critical thinking on the subject. Here's a clue to it: Humanism rejects the spiritual realm as denoted by their manifesto and so does the 150+ year old theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::FOOTNOTES- Humanist Manifestos I,II,2000,Amsterdam Declaration. All are available for reading through any search engine.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

==Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate==

These debates are silly as there are very few footnotes backing up assertions. I suggest creating some noteworthy articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

They are only silly if you adamantly oppose one view point in favor of the other. It will not matter how many foot notes one provides, you will not look them up for your mind is made up in the matter.

Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes evolution convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the creation/intelligent design camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view.

{{unsigned|Jbw224}} (November 2007)

Evolution is far from being proven. What is this convincing evidence? Some peppered moths changing colour. That sounds like reproduction according to its own kind to me. And fossils of extinct animals / dinosaurs? These 'scientists' will consider any mass extinction theory, except the one written about in the Bible. The evolution fantasy is clearly a theory, which is unbelievable, flawed and unprovable. Adam

Evolution is a fantasy? I'm sorry, but at least it is something we can observe in some way or another with our own eyes, unlike your god. Chris
: Oh? How many creatures or plants have you seen evolve into quite different creatures or plants? Answer please. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

: (paraphrasing Jbw224): Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes creation convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the evolution camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

It's funny about your so called authoritative voices in the scientific community that you mention are nearly all of them religious fundamentalists themselves...or at least funded by the Disc Institute, a religious think tank. If you want to "teach the controversy" then you can also teach holocaust denying, because there are plenty of "academics" who don't believe in the holocaust either.

Evolution, like the existence of the holocaust, is strongly supported by evidence. Those who believe otherwise hasn't published a single article and submitted it for peer revision in the realm of academics.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
: Please justify your claim of the persons concerned being "fundamentalists". And of them being funded by the Discovery Institute.
: Also please justify your claim that there are "plenty" of academics who don't believe in the holocaust.
: Your assertions that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence is disputed by many people. Your claim that those that believe otherwise haven't published a single peer-reviewed article is absolutely false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :)

::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Fluorescent lightbulb

2010-10-13T01:19:57Z

JohnLee:

'''Fluorescent light bulbs''' are lamps that use the phenomena of fluorescence to produce light. Fluorescence is the emission of radiation by a substance that is exposed to an external source of radiation.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluorescence]</ref> They are much more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs, since incandescent bulbs waste most of their energy producing heat rather than light.<ref>[http://home.howstuffworks.com/question236.htm]</ref>

== Operation ==

Fluorescent bulbs consist of glass tubes filled with low pressure mercury-argon vapor. The inner wall of the tube is coated with a white phosphor. A heated filament emits electrons into the vapor, causing the vapor atoms to emit ultraviolet light. This ultraviolet light is then absorbed by the white phosphor and re-emitted as visible light.<ref>[http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/fluorescentligh_sowh.htm]</ref>

== Footnotes ==

<references>

[[category:technology]]

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2010-10-11T20:53:52Z

JohnLee:

== Taking AP Biology ==
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire '''chapter''' in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David {{unsigned|DavidKondner}}
::Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. [[user:horenvalle]] 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

:::Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

::::"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never peril. [[Sun Tzu]]"
::::If there's ''only'' a chapter on evolution in your course, I'd be amazed. Any non-creationist course on [[biology]] is likely to be [[evolution]]-centric. After all, if one won't accept special [[creation]], it's the only game in town! Just keep in mind the difference between science (testable, repeatable) and just-so stories ("This feature arose because ..."). Here are a couple of links you might find useful and encouraging:
::::*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0920classroom.asp ‘Creation evangelism’ in the public school classroom]
::::*[http://creation.com/how-do-i-do-my-assignment-about-evolution How do I do my assignment about evolution?]
::::You also might want to invest in a copy of Evolution Exposed, a book that breaks down the evolutionary assumptions and explanations, explicit and implicit, and provides both brief answers and directions to finding more information on line.
::::In short, you need to know what the evolutionists teach, even if you know it's wrong. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

::better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

:::All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

:::Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you all for your wonderful suggestions! In the end I decided to take the course and found out it wasn’t nearly as bad as a thought it would be. I expressed my concerns to my teacher beforehand and he was very understanding. Before we started the unit he was very clear to the class that evolution was a theory and we were under no obligation whatsoever to believe evolution, however he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam. It’s amazing how similar some of God’s creatures can be and I can almost see how a Godless Atheist might believe they once shared a common ancestor. All in all, the course has been an enlightening experience and, for the most part, has given me greater respect and appreciation for God’s creatures and life in general. --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:59, 3 February 2010 (EST)

:Davidkon, we have no way to confirm your experience, but even if true it is not typically for public school science teachers, most of whom can be very liberal and very dogmatic about the theory of evolution. Also, I find it odd that "he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam." AP exams are like extra credit, for an extra charge, and are rarely a requirement of any public school class.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 3 February 2010 (EST)

As I’ve said before, my AP Bio class is relatively harmless, but my AP government class is sure getting out of hand! The entire class is one big batch of liberal propaganda about how social reform is “necessary” and how that the current conservative platform on homosexuality is one of “intolerance and bigotry”, and that’s a direct quote from the textbook! There are countless other biases that I have to deal with on a daily basis. On top of that when I asked my teacher about concerns the course is liberally biased, she told me “David, I’m sorry to tell you this, but ''reality'' has a liberal bias.” Can you believe that!?!--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 22:22, 2 March 2010 (EST)

== Unable to edit? ==

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. {{unsigned|BertSchlossberg}}
: Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:: Right. The [[Jesse Helms]] entry is not locked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When only part of an article is accepted==
I recently posted an entry, [[F-105 Thunderchief]], and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:You had a bad <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag which I have fixed. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==KAL 007 article on Main page==
I would like to propose having the article [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST)
(finally got it right!)

: I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: There's a [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|page]] for listing proposed featured articles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. {{unsigned|Std}}
: We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

{{unsigned|Std}}
:You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
: An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. As an example, I just did a search on [http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= ACORN], a group funded by leftist billionaire [[George Soros]] that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Bobby R. Himes==
I have a photo for the new article [[Bobby R. Himes]]. Can I get permission to upload it?[[User: Bhathorn|Bhathorn]] 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click [[Special:Emailuser/Philip_J._Rayment|here]] to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Banning policy?==
Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?
:JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:
::''"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."''
:And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?
::I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run ''this place''; you will answer mine now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Google misdirection==
In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
** For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
*** You mean that they generally ''only'' intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Copyright? ==
I'd like to comment that [[:File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg]] should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{tl|commons}} template, both in [[Help:List of Templates]] and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== In the News ==
I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html Look Who's a Believer Now]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 29, 2009, p. W13. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Google Gadget? ==
I understand that [[google]] has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?[[User:Mrguido45|Mrguido45]] 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Feature on the Main Page ==
The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. [[User: Praboud|Praboud]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Referred to as a Methodist ==

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

:It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Fixed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== I might be wrong... ==

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

:Just your '''unsupported''' opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "'''I might be wrong...'''". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

:::What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Ah. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Che_Guevara]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "'''dumb white teenagers'''." [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

==Tau ceti to Tau Ceti==

I created an article called [[Tau ceti]], but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

:Yes, there [[Tau Ceti|'''is''']]. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks! -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

==Alger Hiss==
I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

::Spam protection filter

::The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks![[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

==Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star==

The article I created called [[Kapteyn's star]] was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

== Double Redirects ==
All three of the current [[Special:doubleredirects|double redirects]] are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

==I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking==

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. [[User:Jdelong11|Jdelong11]]

: Did my change fix this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:55, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Username change==
Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

If this is possible, I would also be interested in doing so, since I have been recently denuked, and it would be disingenuous to continue with this username. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]]

:Sure, just provide your requested new name here and I'll change it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I'd to change my username to JonathanDP81. I'm standardizing my username across all my websites. [[User:JonathanDP|JonathanDP]] 10:47, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

==User Additions to this site==
Hi, I'm new here and I'm interested in adding some content to Conservapedia, namely in respect to firearm laws. Just a cursory glace makes me think that users can only edit existing topics? Am I wrong?
--[[User:LibGunslinger|LibGunslinger]] 11:28, Dec 10 2009
:You can add new pages if you so desire.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Nova==

I believe this is right place to ask this, so here I am. I want to write an article on the astronomical phenomenon known as a "Nova", however all search on this site for that word is already directed towards "NOVA", a stub on the PBS series of that name. Should I rebuild that article to focus on the astronomical phenomena as that is what the base definition of a nova means? Or start a whole new article, such as "nova_(star)"? Thanks. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:18, 28 December 2009 (EST)

: I'll move "NOVA" to "NOVA (PBS)", and you can then have "Nova". Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)

::I turned the NOVA page into a disambiguation page that now points to both [[NOVA_(PBS)]] and [[Nova_(star)]], is this good? May want to make it Nova instead of NOVA though. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:29, 28 December 2009 (EST)

:::It's fine as you did it. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Deleting Account==
I'm not sure how it's done but I can't seem to find an option to shutdown/cancel my account. Please, shutdown/cancel my account. I've simply decided to not work on this project anymore. I didn't do many edits but if they all have to go, that's fine.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 22:14, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:The easiest way is the most direct way, "Composer"...simply stop logging in. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:24, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::Is that an auto-account deletion function? How many days does it take? I don't want this account sitting on this IP address.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 22:28, 16 February 2010 (EST)

==Writing Plan==

User Ed Poor requested a writing plan from me. How exactly do I submit it to him?
Thank you. --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 16:53, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Fluorescent lightbulb

2010-10-02T00:53:31Z

JohnLee: Created page with ''''Fluorescent light bulbs''' are lamps that use the phenomena of fluorescence to produce light. Fluorescence is the emission of radiation by a substance that is exposed to an ex…'

User talk:JohnLee

2010-10-01T23:57:01Z

JohnLee:

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:52, 6 June 2010 (EDT)}}

:If you just came to complain, you can leave now. Otherwise, please submit a [[Conservapedia:writing plan|writing plan]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
::I appologize if I gave the impression that I am here to complain. I will submit a writing plan as instructed. --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 19:14, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
::Wait, how do I submit one, and what exactly should it contain? --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 19:57, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

User talk:JohnLee

2010-10-01T23:14:26Z

JohnLee:

User:JohnLee

2010-10-01T21:04:56Z

JohnLee: Created page with 'I will do my best to contribute to this site in an open-minded and civil manner. I currently accept the theory of evolution as explaining the origin of species (but not the ori…'

I will do my best to contribute to this site in an open-minded and civil manner.

I currently accept the theory of evolution as explaining the origin of species (but not the origin of ''life''); however I welcome any attempts to convince me otherwise.

Talk:Dreamtime

2010-10-01T21:01:28Z

JohnLee:

I am concerned that this page was left without comment, which could have led readers to follow the pagan/satanic beliefs expressed therin. [[User:Zmart|Zmart]] 15:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
:Personally, I don't think that there is any reason to be concerned of that happening. After all, the article says that Dreamtime is a creation ''myth;'' and being a myth, we don't have to explicitly comment on if it's true or not. --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 17:01, 1 October 2010 (EDT)