Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2012-05-25T14:12:10Z

Kicple:

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like Doctor [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having been featured on various mainstream media programs such as the [[History Channel]], where he has promoted his his atheistic and scientific views. He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium <ref>[http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/about/message]</ref> and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Atheists]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2012-05-21T02:09:38Z

Kicple:

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like Doctor [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having featured on various mainstream media programs such as the History Channel in order to promote his atheistic and scientific views. He is a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Atheists]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2012-05-16T13:56:38Z

Kicple:

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like Doctor [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having featured on various mainstream media programs such as the History Channel in order to promote his atheistic and scientific views. He is the director of the Hayden Platentarium and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Atheists]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2012-05-16T13:40:04Z

Kicple:

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like Doctor [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having featured on various mainstream media programs such as the History Channel in order to promote his atheist and scientific views. He is the director of the Hayden Platentarium and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Atheists]]

Ad hominem

2012-05-03T14:13:46Z

Kicple:

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] consisting of denigrating one's opponent or otherwise introducing irrelevant premises about one's opponent, instead of dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed; it just has to be irrelevant to the topic of the debate.

== Classical structure ==
Classically, this fallacy is aimed at casting doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
# Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>

== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:

# It is an [[appeal to emotion]] rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms, the most common of which are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Example ==
The statement

:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.

==Examples of non-ad hominem arguments==
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness. Again, however, this is not technically an ''ad hominem'' argument.

==Other meanings of ad hominem==

American Heritage Dictionary says:
:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [[Special pleading]]
* [[Argumentum ad populum]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Ad hominem

2012-05-03T14:06:53Z

Kicple: /* Delete Non-fallacious Uses section? */

{{user GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: So where'd d'ya get that logic? Let's examine the argument.

*Gun control favoured by totalitarians is true you say. We'll return to this statement.

*This is an ad hominem statement.

*Synthesis = this is an example of a good ad hominem statement.

Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely.
- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)

== Strong Character = Strong Argument ==
Apologies for the intrusion, but am I reading the second paragraph of the non-fallacious uses section correctly? It seems to indicate that correctness stems not from the strength of the argument, but from the person arguing it.

This seems to indicate, for example, that if a Christian tells you the sky is blue, he must be right, but if an Atheist says it, he must be wrong. Is that the correct interpretation of this verse? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 22:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a ''truism''. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

::I see. So, by virtue of being an atheist or liberal, one's arguments are automatically incorrect? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 23:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::It matters not if they are, or aren't. There is no logical point in having a discussion with them, sans morality on their part. Atheists are truly just the walking dead, CCalloway, to put it very bluntly. They have no standards of honesty or truth, and most liberals and atheists are deceitful. More to the point, the liberals practice deceit in denying their morality isn't open to question, and using the dodge of "ad hominem attack" to cut off that line of questioning. To a conservative, to a Christian, that dog doesn't hunt. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

::::I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there, TK. There are both deceivers and honourable men on both sides. There are folks like you on both sides, as well. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 00:09, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, we will then agree to disagree, CCalloway. However, this is a conservative encyclopedia, Christian friendly one, and that is what conservatives believe. Christians as well, eschew moral relativism. Morals, Character and Faith matter. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:59, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:No one here is saying that morals, character, and faith do not matter, nor is anyone saying that moral relativism is correct. I am merely saying that an argument's strength is determined by the argument, not the speaker. Do you disagree? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 10:08, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== Delete Non-fallacious Uses section? ==
IMHO, this section needs to be deleted. It's not only hypocritical and false, it's also (ironically enough) one of the worst uses of argumentum ad hominem I've ever seen. At the very least, it needs reformatted. Joseph Kony advocates worshipping Christ, and using the logic in that section, his (supposed) love of Christ would be bad, and (so it is implied) anyone else who loves Christ would be immoral, as well. On the other hand, you could easily dismiss a schizophrenic's argument that bugs are crawling over him, you, and the walls and burrowing inside everything. In short, bad character doesn't automatically make ones argument worthless, but mental disorders do (or should, IMO). [[User:Kicple|Kicple]] 10:45, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:Well, it's been almost a month with no reply. Either no one cares, or no one has seen this. Either way, I'm going to go ahead and take it down. [[User:Kicple|Kicple]] 10:06, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Ad hominem

2012-05-03T14:06:14Z

Kicple: /* Delete Non-fallacious Uses section? */

{{user GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: So where'd d'ya get that logic? Let's examine the argument.

*Gun control favoured by totalitarians is true you say. We'll return to this statement.

*This is an ad hominem statement.

*Synthesis = this is an example of a good ad hominem statement.

Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely.
- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)

== Strong Character = Strong Argument ==
Apologies for the intrusion, but am I reading the second paragraph of the non-fallacious uses section correctly? It seems to indicate that correctness stems not from the strength of the argument, but from the person arguing it.

This seems to indicate, for example, that if a Christian tells you the sky is blue, he must be right, but if an Atheist says it, he must be wrong. Is that the correct interpretation of this verse? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 22:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a ''truism''. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

::I see. So, by virtue of being an atheist or liberal, one's arguments are automatically incorrect? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 23:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::It matters not if they are, or aren't. There is no logical point in having a discussion with them, sans morality on their part. Atheists are truly just the walking dead, CCalloway, to put it very bluntly. They have no standards of honesty or truth, and most liberals and atheists are deceitful. More to the point, the liberals practice deceit in denying their morality isn't open to question, and using the dodge of "ad hominem attack" to cut off that line of questioning. To a conservative, to a Christian, that dog doesn't hunt. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

::::I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there, TK. There are both deceivers and honourable men on both sides. There are folks like you on both sides, as well. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 00:09, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, we will then agree to disagree, CCalloway. However, this is a conservative encyclopedia, Christian friendly one, and that is what conservatives believe. Christians as well, eschew moral relativism. Morals, Character and Faith matter. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:59, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:No one here is saying that morals, character, and faith do not matter, nor is anyone saying that moral relativism is correct. I am merely saying that an argument's strength is determined by the argument, not the speaker. Do you disagree? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 10:08, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== Delete Non-fallacious Uses section? ==
IMHO, this section needs to be deleted. It's not only hypocritical and false, it's also (ironically enough) one of the worst uses of argumentum ad hominem I've ever seen. At the very least, it needs reformatted. Joseph Kony advocates worshipping Christ, and using the logic in that section, his (supposed) love of Christ would be bad, and (so it is implied) anyone else who loves Christ would be immoral, as well. On the other hand, you could easily dismiss a schizophrenic's argument that bugs are crawling over him, you, and the walls and burrowing inside everything. In short, bad character doesn't automatically make ones argument worthless, but mental disorders do (or should, IMO). [[User:Kicple|Kicple]] 10:45, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::Well, it's been almost a month with no reply. Either no one cares, or no one has seen this. Either way, I'm going to go ahead and take it down.

Talk:Ad hominem

2012-04-13T14:45:14Z

Kicple:

Talk:Evolution

2012-04-06T05:40:56Z

Kicple: /* Factual error */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Hate to say it, but Factcheck was right. It's been proven as fact multiple times...it's actually better understood and more of a fact than gravity. [[User:Kicple|Kicple]] 18:15, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Unlike gravity, macroevolution has never been observed. According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." :) [http://creation.com/has-evolution-been-observed-dawkins] Dawkins reminds me of Bill Clinton. It depends on how you define the word "is". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Using that logic, you can't prove Creation, either. Sure, it's been well-recorded and well-documented, but no one alive now actually saw it happen. Same goes for evolution; difference is, one has a book backing it up, the other has actual research to back it up.
::::I'd also like to say, in order to get it out of the way, that my opinion of the Bible is the same as Thomas Jefferson's...great role model, not so great a textbook. [[User:Kicple|Kicple]] 01:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

== Your failure to accept evolution ==

Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
:Jackmondoo, you seem frustrated that Darwinism hasn't gained far better traction in the world in terms of public acceptance - despite having 150 plus years to do so. Given that [[global atheism]] is shrinking and is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] and the inability of Darwinists such as yourself to satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] things are not going to go better for Darwinism in terms of public acceptance and likely to grow much worse. In addition, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
::By the way, the [[Journal of Creation]] and the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] are both peer reviewed journals. You failure to mention them despite them being listed at this website is indicative of you engaging in sloppy due diligence or deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Also, last time I checked the bulk of academia failed to predict the 2008 global economic crises, yet you want the public to take their evolutionism which supposedly happened millions of years ago as gospel truth - it is not going to happen (especially in the light of the fact that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]). Lastly, given that Darwinists do not believe in open science and engage in [http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/slaughter-dissidents-p-963.html?osCsid=de3u859284nnchqbskrigeuaf4 repressive tactics] and have [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils "trade secrets"] they keep from the public, I find your 98% figure rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

this is all quite disturbing...[[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]] 19:19, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
:::It is quite disturbing that some liberals cling to liberal consensus in the absence of proof and evidence. What I want to know is: If liberal scientists are such masters of understanding of the natural world, then why praytell did they schedule 'global warming' conferences during bone chilling weather? On the other hand, the biblical creationist and prophet [[Moses]] was an excellent predictor when it came to plagues, hail and other phenomena. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

What does scheduling a global warming conference during cold weather have to do with anything? Are all scientists liberals? [[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]] 19:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
::As far as I know, the scientists involved in the [[Journal of Creation]] and the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] are not liberals. Also, I do find your reluctance to concede my point about the 'global warming' conferences to be quite telling. Cold weather indeed - try snow filled and/or bone chilling weather! Congratulations, you win the Conservapedia understatement of the day award. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:05, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::As far as you know? Does that mean that some of these scientists still might be liberals? Or that there might be other non-liberal scientists? The fact that it still snows does not mean that the average temperature of earth is not rising. Hotter summers can cause a dramatic change in weather patterns. I can see the vast amount of intellect you have put into this. Perhaps you should cite some creationist websites to support your argument. [[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]]
There are liberals/atheists/evolutionists who are greatly puzzled that I am capable of showing an inexplicable amount of clarity in areas of outside atheism/evolutionism. I will now solve this puzzle without Occam's razor being violated (Let's not forget the fact that William of Ockham was a theist). Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are false.

Do you see the sheer beauty of this simple, yet powerful solution? It elegantly explains why evolutionism violates the tenets of open science, does it not? Namely, evolutionism displays these characteristics: evolutionists have [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils "trade secrets"] that they attempt to keep from the public and evolutionists futilely [http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/slaughter-dissidents-p-963.html?osCsid=de3u859284nnchqbskrigeuaf4 attempting to crush dissent in unethical ways.] Of course, those who attempt to crush anti-evolutionary dissent are no match for: the growing grassroots [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and its [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], [[global atheism]] shrinking and its expected accelerated shrinking which is going to impact Western atheism, the [[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 factors]] which are going to negatively affect American atheism and the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:24, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, two reservoirs of [[creation science|creation scientists]]' insight on the global warming controversy can be found [http://creation.com/search HERE] and [http://www.icr.org/index.php?search=AdvancedSearch&f_keyword_all=&f_context_all=any&f_keyword_exact=global+warming&f_context_exact=any&f_keyword_any=global+warming&f_context_any=title&f_keyword_without=&f_context_without=any&f_search_type=all&f_articles_date_begin=&f_articles_date_end=&f_authorID=&f_topicID=&f_typeID=&f_type=&f_events_date_begin=&f_events_date_end=&f_regionID=&f_radio_date_begin=&f_radio_date_end=&f_format=&section=0&f_constraint=both&module=home&action=submitsearch HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:46, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
No I do not see how that explains anything. What you just said makes absolutely no sense. I'm puzzled that you can actually read or write, because you certainly do not show any clarity. It seems like the only arguments you have are you declaring atheism is coming to and end and citing Christian websites. [[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]] 01:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
::Clarkbc, setting aside the Book of Revelation which certainly speaks of "the end" which I have never mentioned in relation to atheism, where did I ever say that atheism would come to an end and what sources did I employ? Did I not rather provide resources concerning the [[Decline of atheism]]? Are you engaging in sloppy thinking and "argumentation" and/or deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Second, are you familiar with the genetic fallacy and are you once again engaging in sloppy thinking and argumentation? By the way, deep down we know that atheism is already intellectually dead and that is why the ex-militant atheist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]] (we know the so called [[weak atheism]] is dressed up covert agnosticism and also intellectually dead), has a [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardice problem]] when it comes to debating conservative Christianity. Feel free to engage in [[last wordism]] at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:15, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Wow--just checking this thread again. Clarkbc doesn't seem to want to engage in an actual discussion about the facts. I fear for the future of our country when debates digress into name-calling. I can see now why this page is locked: many who might edit it have no interest in advancing the discussion for the greater good. Although I do disagree that, "those who attempt to crush anti-evolutionary dissent are no match for the growing grassroots." You should never underestimate the strength of a theory that had been around for 150 years. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 15:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

User:Kicple

2012-04-03T22:21:53Z

Kicple: Created page with "4 Arc Chef Teck 7"

4 Arc Chef Teck 7

Talk:Evolution

2012-04-03T22:15:39Z

Kicple: /* Factual error */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Hate to say it, but Factcheck was right. It's been proven as fact multiple times...it's actually better understood and more of a fact than gravity. [[User:Kicple|Kicple]] 18:15, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

== Your failure to accept evolution ==

Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
:Jackmondoo, you seem frustrated that Darwinism hasn't gained far better traction in the world in terms of public acceptance - despite having 150 plus years to do so. Given that [[global atheism]] is shrinking and is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] and the inability of Darwinists such as yourself to satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] things are not going to go better for Darwinism in terms of public acceptance and likely to grow much worse. In addition, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
::By the way, the [[Journal of Creation]] and the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] are both peer reviewed journals. You failure to mention them despite them being listed at this website is indicative of you engaging in sloppy due diligence or deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Also, last time I checked the bulk of academia failed to predict the 2008 global economic crises, yet you want the public to take their evolutionism which supposedly happened millions of years ago as gospel truth - it is not going to happen (especially in the light of the fact that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]). Lastly, given that Darwinists do not believe in open science and engage in [http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/slaughter-dissidents-p-963.html?osCsid=de3u859284nnchqbskrigeuaf4 repressive tactics] and have [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils "trade secrets"] they keep from the public, I find your 98% figure rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

this is all quite disturbing...[[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]] 19:19, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
:::It is quite disturbing that some liberals cling to liberal consensus in the absence of proof and evidence. What I want to know is: If liberal scientists are such masters of understanding of the natural world, then why praytell did they schedule 'global warming' conferences during bone chilling weather? On the other hand, the biblical creationist and prophet [[Moses]] was an excellent predictor when it came to plagues, hail and other phenomena. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

What does scheduling a global warming conference during cold weather have to do with anything? Are all scientists liberals? [[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]] 19:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
::As far as I know, the scientists involved in the [[Journal of Creation]] and the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] are not liberals. Also, I do find your reluctance to concede my point about the 'global warming' conferences to be quite telling. Cold weather indeed - try snow filled and/or bone chilling weather! Congratulations, you win the Conservapedia understatement of the day award. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:05, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::As far as you know? Does that mean that some of these scientists still might be liberals? Or that there might be other non-liberal scientists? The fact that it still snows does not mean that the average temperature of earth is not rising. Hotter summers can cause a dramatic change in weather patterns. I can see the vast amount of intellect you have put into this. Perhaps you should cite some creationist websites to support your argument. [[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]]
There are liberals/atheists/evolutionists who are greatly puzzled that I am capable of showing an inexplicable amount of clarity in areas of outside atheism/evolutionism. I will now solve this puzzle without Occam's razor being violated (Let's not forget the fact that William of Ockham was a theist). Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are false.

Do you see the sheer beauty of this simple, yet powerful solution? It elegantly explains why evolutionism violates the tenets of open science, does it not? Namely, evolutionism displays these characteristics: evolutionists have [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils "trade secrets"] that they attempt to keep from the public and evolutionists futilely [http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/slaughter-dissidents-p-963.html?osCsid=de3u859284nnchqbskrigeuaf4 attempting to crush dissent in unethical ways.] Of course, those who attempt to crush anti-evolutionary dissent are no match for the growing grassroots [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and its [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], [[global atheism]] shrinking and its expected accelerated shrinking which is going to impact Western atheism, the [[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 factors]] which are going to negatively affect American atheism and the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:24, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, two reservoirs of [[creation science|creation scientists]]' insight on the global warming controversy can be found [http://creation.com/search HERE] and [http://www.icr.org/index.php?search=AdvancedSearch&f_keyword_all=&f_context_all=any&f_keyword_exact=global+warming&f_context_exact=any&f_keyword_any=global+warming&f_context_any=title&f_keyword_without=&f_context_without=any&f_search_type=all&f_articles_date_begin=&f_articles_date_end=&f_authorID=&f_topicID=&f_typeID=&f_type=&f_events_date_begin=&f_events_date_end=&f_regionID=&f_radio_date_begin=&f_radio_date_end=&f_format=&section=0&f_constraint=both&module=home&action=submitsearch HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:46, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
No I do not see how that explains anything. What you just said makes absolutely no sense. I'm puzzled that you can actually read or write, because you certainly do not show any clarity. It seems like the only arguments you have are you declaring atheism is coming to and end and citing Christian websites. [[User:Clarkbc|Clarkbc]] 01:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
::Clarkbc, setting aside the Book of Revelation which certainly speaks of "the end" which I have never mentioned in relation to atheism, where did I ever say that atheism would come to an end and what sources did I employ? Did I not rather provide resources concerning the [[Decline of atheism]]? Are you engaging in sloppy thinking and "argumentation" and/or deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Second, are you familiar with the genetic fallacy and are you once again engaging in sloppy thinking and argumentation? By the way, deep down we know that atheism is already intellectually dead and that is why the ex-militant atheist and agnostic [[Richard Dawkins]] (we know the so called [[weak atheism]] is dressed up covert agnosticism and also intellectually dead), has a [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardice problem]] when it comes to debating conservative Christianity. Feel free to engage in [[last wordism]] at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:15, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Wow--just checking this thread again. Clarkbc doesn't seem to want to engage in an actual discussion about the facts. I fear for the future of our country when debates digress into name-calling. I can see now why this page is locked: many who might edit it have no interest in advancing the discussion for the greater good. Although I do disagree that, "those who attempt to crush anti-evolutionary dissent are no match for the growing grassroots." You should never underestimate the strength of a theory that had been around for 150 years. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 15:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)