Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Rick Santorum

2012-01-15T16:22:06Z

TonyPark: /* 2012 Presidential Race */ I think we need a full page about Gabriel Michael Santorum, and his new life as a rallying point for prolifers.

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Rick Santorum''' (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958 - ) is an American lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views, but he would endorse and aggressively campaign for [[pro-abortion]] candidates against [[pro-life]] opponents. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

<blockquote>
Santorum was an author and floor manager of the landmark "Welfare Reform Act" which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. Senator Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion" as well as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", and the "Combating Autism Act" because he believes each and every individual has value and the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. <ref> [http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick Why Rick?]</ref>
</blockquote>

A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "[[Santorum Amendment]]" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to undermine curricula which present the [[theory of evolution]] in a dogmatic way, but amendment opponents said it the language would have the effect of supporting the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s, which they regard as [[Creationism]] rather than as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Santorum is currently a candidate for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential Election]].
==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] became obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argued that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they knew the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. Since they had no legitimate arguments, they could only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks.
==Dan Savage==
Homosexual advice columnist [[Dan Savage]] instigated a campaign on [[Google]] to associate Santorum's name with vile slang. By enlisting the help of readers of his column, mostly college students experimenting with sexual deviancy, he redirected legitimate searches for Santorum's name to a slanderous website he created, urging people to spread the candidate's name as a vile Internet meme. That children are often the first to absorb new Internet content was apparently of no concern to the gay rights activist, who also encouraged writers to his newspaper column to address him as "Dear Faggot."<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340</ref>

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606</ref>, Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

<blockquote>
In the [[Iowa]] caucuses, January, 3, 2012, Santorum and [[Mitt Romney]] Fight to a Draw. In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes, offering Rick Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mitt Romney. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Vote] </ref>
</blockquote>

==Personal Life==
Rick Santorum and his wife Karen are the parents of seven children: Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter, Patrick and Isabella. In keeping with his conservative, pro life stance, Santorum counts as his eighth child Gabriel, who sadly lost his life due to an infection contracted in the womb. The Santorum family's struggle with the sadness of a miscarriage, and their decision to mourn the baby as a human being, served as an inspiration to other families struggling with the pain of losing a child in the womb. On the other hand, the criticism Santorum received from pro abortion journalists, such as liberal "gotcha reporter" Alan Colmes<ref>www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48506</ref>, who accused Santorum of "playing" with his dead child's body, has been fierce. Public sentiment, however, is firmly in Santorum's column.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/286998/alan-colmes-apologizes-rick-santorum-greg-pollowitz</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Catholic Politicians]]

African slave trade

2012-01-15T15:44:04Z

TonyPark:

{{quotation|In evaluating the African slave trade, there was another "[[Middle Passage]]" often neglected by most scholars—the [[Arab slave trade]]. It is often forgotten that the Arab slave trade in [[East Africa]] and the slave trade from [[North Africa]] into Inner West Africa was protracted and ruthless. Sometimes the [[Arabs]] from the north who were [[Moslem]] enslaved [[Africans]] in the south who were also Moslems, thereby violating one of the most basic customs of their faith—that no Moslem should enslave another Moslem.<ref> [http://www.africawithin.com/clarke/part30f10.htm The African Holocaust—The Slave Trade]</ref> }}

{{quotation|The African so-called slave "trade" was a demand-driven market out of Europe and America, not a supply-driven market out of Africa. We did not seek to sell captives to the Whites as an original act.<ref> [http://www.africawithin.com/maafa/did_we_sell.htm Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery?]</ref> }}

Scholars and commentators have noted that, despite the injustice of slavery itself, the African slave trade did result in the descendants of slaves living a far better quality of life than their African counterparts.

==Notes==
<references />

[[category:Slavery]]

Virginity pledge

2012-01-15T15:33:02Z

TonyPark: info on health benefits of virginity pledges, will be adding more soon

A virginity pledge is a commitment, usually made in a group, to practice [[abstinence]] until [[marriage]]. These pledges are usually symbolized by purity rings, or covenant cards.<ref>http://www.waitt.org/</ref>
Christian scholars have put forth the rationale behind the Virginity Pledge movement, that success in life is correlated to respect for oneself, and respect for oneself begins with respect for one's one body. By teaching children to respect their bodies with regard to intimacy, it has been shown in studies that students are more likely to have a positive self-image and less likely to compromise their bodies with drugs and alcohol. Similarly, teens who took virginity pledges are more likely to exercise regularly and far less likely to be overweight or obese.
According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], teens who make virginity pledges enjoy the following life outcomes <ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm</ref>:

*Are less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
*Are less likely to be sexually active while in high school and as young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth out of wedlock;
*Are less likely to engage in risky unprotected sex; and
*Will have fewer sexual partners.
[[Image:Virginity pledge.jpg|right]]
In contrast, a study by Janet Elise Rosenbaum PhD, published in the January 2009 edition of the journal ''Pediatrics''<ref>Rosenbaum, Janet '''Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers''', ''Pediatrics'' 2009, vol 123, issue 1, e110-e120</ref>,addressed the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who signed a virginity pledge compared to the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who did not sign a pledge. This study found that pledgers and nonpledgers were not different in likelihood of premarital sex (53% vs 57%), age at first sex (21.2 vs 20.7), number of lifetime sexual partners (3.2 vs 3.5), and number of sexual encounters in the previous year (22.8 vs. 23.6). Overall there were no differences between the two groups in 12 of 14 measured sexual behaviors, 3 of 3 STD rates, and 4 of 4 marriage outcomes. The study did not address overall pregnancy rates, teen pregnancy rates, or birth rates. Rosenbaum found that pledgers did differ from socially similar nonpledgers in the following ways:

*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control and condoms over the last year;
*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control at last intercourse;
*Pledgers reported 1.09 last-year sexual partners, compared to 1.2 last-year partners for nonpledgers; and
*1.04% of pledgers reported having been paid for sex, compared to 3.34% of non-pledgers.

==references==
<references/>

[[Category:Abstinence Campaigns]]

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-14T02:37:59Z

TonyPark: /* Um... */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:19, 7 January 2012 (EST)}}

==Block of Adambro==
Have you used the checkuser tool for that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:22, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't believe I have access to the CheckUser tool. It's under Special Pages, right? I wasn't able to find it. My decision to block Adambro came from analyzing his contributions. He has a large number of very minor edits and talk page posts, mostly pushing liberal POV. He also seemed to clean up the vandalism within a minute of each attack happening, as though he were trying to "build cred" with the site. Mostly, he was an argumentative liberal nitpicker who didn't feel the need to contribute anything to the site. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:34, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::By the way, I just check your contributions and I wonder how fast you got your block rights: 1st article on the 6th, then mostly contributions in [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] that shows how much you love your [[pseudo-science]] of [[Evolution]], then you got your block rights on the 9th ! I unblocked Adambro‎, feel free to discuss the matter with me. Reverting vandalism in less than 2 minutes does not prove anything. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:35, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not interested in a blocking war with you. I blocked Adambro out of a genuine concern that he is a deep-cover parodist. My belief in evolution is irrelevant. I think it is very curious that he was able to revert long stretches of vandalism by two vandals with very similar names almost immediately after they happened. If you could do me a favor, run CheckUser on Adambro, BL4NK3R, and BU99ERY and make sure that they don't have similar IPs. Thanks. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'm not interested neither in a blocking war. I just feel we shouldn't block users without valid accusations. You made a good case and Adambro should be warned and monitored but I don't feel he deserved an infinite block (except if he really is a sockpuppet). Twice he reverted vandalism really quick but this does not prove anything, I have done that before. I do not have the rights to use the checkuser, you may want to check this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50 list]. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:02, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the help and information. I will be more cautious from now on. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:18, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::::You are welcome but be careful, I haven't seen a lot of people win an edit war against a senior admin, however legitimate it may be.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:42, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Um... ==

How can you block people who don't have a first name and last initial username when you yourself don't follow the policy? You're banning innocent users that want to join. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 17:54, 13 January 2012 (EST)

My real name is Anthony Parker, so TonyPark is a perfectly acceptable name under the policy, the point of which is to keep frivolous, anti-intellectual usernames out. Besides, its not like I permanently banned them, they can just go and make a new account with an acceptable user name. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Actually, he can, and will, unblock himself. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:26, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Then he'll come after you. [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:27, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yeah, but he knows he has lost the respect of this site, blocking me is irrelevant.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:33, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::From what I see, he has no right to take any action against you. If he were to take action, it would do little more than further reveal his questionable tactics on this site. However, I can't help but feel that blocking him was an act of provocation. If he decides to block you, it would be your own doing, even if it isn't deserved. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:36, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

:::Conservative's grasp on reality is erratic. He divides the world into two categories; good moral Christians who naturally support his crusading efforts, and liberal atheists who hate him because they are perverse, he relishes their disapproval and their attention. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AConservative Check his block log], your message isn't going to sink in, after all your obviously a liberal atheist and probably gay. He will find a way to accommodate the facts to his worldview. Conservative should be sympathized with not disliked, remember that he truly believes everything he says. His articles are an expression of what is going on in his mind. Can you imagine living in that world? [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:45, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::Conservative is not my concern. I want the site to see how ridiculous he is. He has a vested interest in keeping his fingers lodged firmly in his ears.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::Oh, everyone already sees that. But Conservative writes materiel that generates a lot of page views, and he contributes massively to the site, he contribute something like a quarter of the edits. And as long as Conservative keeps pumping out content Andy will give him free a hand; despite whatever impact editing might be having on Conservatives mental health and whatever impact his behavior has on the overall community. Notice how often Andy keeps crowing over vague increases in site traffic. He doesn't seem to care whether people are coming here to laugh at us. It's the ratings that matter and Conservative is great for ratings. [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 21:02, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::::Well, even he can agree that his name is in violation of naming policy. Its a fairly straightforward issue, perhaps he should have read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before he started editing.

:::::You are amazing, Tony Park. I have been waiting to see Conservative fought against since before I got this account, but I was worried about being blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 21:34, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: I am not amazing, I am just trying to have a constructive dialog on this site, as are the vast majority of us, but Conservative's ramblings make it almost impossible. I will oppose his kind as long as they keep dragging the name of Jesus Christ through the mud. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:37, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Awesome ==

That was a very good block. Thanks! [[User:ThankYouTonyPark|ThankYouTonyPark]] 20:28, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality

2012-01-14T02:32:37Z

TonyPark: Just because you've monopolized the article doesn't mean you control the talk page too, Conservative. If you want a blog, go get a WordPress.

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== Answering a question - sort of ==
''August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia homosexuality article in terms of the factual evidence it presents?''

It may present factual evidence. But it is practically unreadable: One can only hope that Aschlafly will take this as an example for his upcoming course in [[Persuasive Writing]] and helps to improve it. Every time I try to read it, I stumble upon so many atrocities that I have to stop. But it has its magic - for me as a foreigner it highlights the many traps in which I often find myself caught!

{|class="wikitable"
|'''Homosexuality''' is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."
|no problem with this sentence
|-
|
'''Theories on how people become homosexual'''<br>[[Causes of Homosexuality|Homosexuality has a number of causal factors]] that influence its ultimate origination in individuals; these factors will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be subsequently elaborated on. Next, some of the historical events, [[Religion|religious]] matters, and [[law|legal]] matters relating to homosexuality will also be covered. Finally, the latter part of the 20th century has seen a [[Homosexuality Research|large body of research]] on the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes]] and effects of homosexuality; this will also be studied.
|''these factors will be addressed shortly'' - ''will also be covered'' - ''this will also be studied'': Three times we are told that something is explained in the future. One time would be enough. And besides a repetition of actions, we see the same words popping up in such a short section: ''also'', ''matter'', ''factor'', ''effect'', ''individual'' and naturally ''homosexuality''.
|-
|
'''Biblical statements concerning homosexuality and secularism/homosexuality'''<br>Below are some [[Bible]] verses that condemn homosexuality: However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their [[blood]] guiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason [[God]] gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9] (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."
|
*Bible or bible?
*Verses should be quoted in parentheses - the abundance of colons is irritating (especially when more than two sentences are linked in this way).
*''Also, Women [sic] may not speak in church'': ''also'' doesn't seem to be the right word to show that you don't subscribe to this sentence!
*The whole section is unclear, you should have divided it into two parts, one for the Old, the other for the New Testament!
*You should stick to one translation, NASB '''or''' NIV.
|}

Generally I don't criticize others for their writing: As I'm not a native speaker this could be seen as presumptuous (you like it when someone uses this word self-mockingly, don't you?) But here, so many flaws are obvious to me that I've to ask myself what I've missed because of my lack of knowledge!

I'm sure that I committed many of the atrocities of which I accuse you in my comments (even in this one) - but I'm not writing the flagship-articles in this encyclopedia. And my errors can be corrected easily: obviously the articles to which I contribute aren't locked.

I hope that my comments help you to improve your article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Regarding the flaws in this article and regular users not being able to edit it, that's the trouble with attempting to construct any reference or resource based off of a pre-formed ideology; a certain level of (rather blatantly undemocratic) censorship must be practiced in order to keep the project in line with its ideological goals.

::Certainly anybody with any significant experience dealing with gay friends/family members/co-workers/classmates/neighbors/employees can cite several fundamental flaws with this article and many of the other articles on conservapedia that relate to homosexuality. By rejecting mainstream psychological, biological, sociological, and anthropological consensus as resulting from the "liberal bias in academia" (which, trust me, does not actually exist), these articles must rely on fringe sources and exaggerated stereotypes.

::For instance, while gay and bisexual men do, on average, have a '''slightly''' higher number of lifetime sexual partners than straight men, the numbers are not nearly as high as many of the sources cited on Conservapedia claim them to be. For instance, in the United States the mean number of lifetime sexual partners for heterosexual males is pretty consistently estimated to be around 7 (this number does not change much across demographics--even evangelical Christian males average 7 partners in their lifetimes). Among MSM (the academic term for gay and bisexual men) in the United States, the average lifetime number of sexual partners ranges between 9 and 12 (depending on the conditions of the study). There are outliers in both groups, straight men reporting more than 100 lifetime sexual partners and MSM reporting similar statistics, but the relative incidence of this is roughly congruent between both groups. Assuming ~50 years of sexual activity for the average male over his lifetime (another, fairly consistent statistic), even at the high end, this means that MSM have one additional sexual partner '''per decade''' when compared to straight men. In light of the facts, the assertion that gay men are "dangerously promiscuous" is patently ridiculous.

::Finally, these articles all overlook the occurrence and cultural significance of MSM in history and non-Western cultures. I say MSM here because "homosexuality" is a rather recent Western cultural concept. In India, for instance, the "hijra" are a population that have existed for ''at least'' two thousand years. Hijra are biologically male, although some prefer to identify themselves as female (and, for them, the western term "transgender" may be the closest equivalent), but they constitute a "third sex" that conventionally takes the passive role in physical relations with nominally straight males. Additionally, the Hijra have an essential ceremonial function in many Hindu traditions (especially in northern India and in Bangladesh), and have historically been accepted as respected members of their communities. By Western standards, straight males who form physical relationships with hijra would be viewed as bisexual or homosexual. Another similar, and often cited, example is the "berdache" in the Zuni culture (many other Native American tribes have an equivalent)--these are men who occupy a social role that is a mix between the traditional male and female roles. Such people were often historically allowed to marry men occupying the traditional male role, and were often (but not always) accepted as important members of their communities. As another example, in early Christian societies (although it was predominantly a Byzantine phenomenon), ἀδελφοποίησις (literally, "brother making") has been interpreted as a form of consecrated same-sex union (this interpretation is, admittedly, somewhat controversial, but the academic consensus is that many of these unions were indeed romantic in nature).

::I know that this is a rather long argument for a talk page, so I am going to end it here. My general points are that homosexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon in human societies and that many gay stereotypes that are thrown around in conservative political discourse are not firmly grounded in fact. In my opinion, the conservative movement is better served by focusing on political values, such as individual liberty and economic sustainability, than attacking the individual liberties (or very existence of) a small minority of people. I am aware that this an unpopular notion among social conservatives, but there are many more significant issues facing the American people at this time (e.g. unemployment) than Tim and Larry up the street deciding to start a family. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:09, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::It figures you would aggressively promote homosexuality despite the facts given in the article. Have you personally engaged in homosexuality? If so, about how many partners have you had? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:14, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality

2012-01-14T02:12:32Z

TonyPark: Undo revision 953789 by ScottDG (talk) I did not delete comments, I put them back after a blocked user deleted them without cause

Talk:Homosexuality

2012-01-14T02:08:54Z

TonyPark: Undo revision 953778 by Conservative (talk)

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-14T02:08:03Z

TonyPark: /* Um... */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:19, 7 January 2012 (EST)}}

==Block of Adambro==
Have you used the checkuser tool for that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:22, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't believe I have access to the CheckUser tool. It's under Special Pages, right? I wasn't able to find it. My decision to block Adambro came from analyzing his contributions. He has a large number of very minor edits and talk page posts, mostly pushing liberal POV. He also seemed to clean up the vandalism within a minute of each attack happening, as though he were trying to "build cred" with the site. Mostly, he was an argumentative liberal nitpicker who didn't feel the need to contribute anything to the site. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:34, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::By the way, I just check your contributions and I wonder how fast you got your block rights: 1st article on the 6th, then mostly contributions in [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] that shows how much you love your [[pseudo-science]] of [[Evolution]], then you got your block rights on the 9th ! I unblocked Adambro‎, feel free to discuss the matter with me. Reverting vandalism in less than 2 minutes does not prove anything. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:35, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not interested in a blocking war with you. I blocked Adambro out of a genuine concern that he is a deep-cover parodist. My belief in evolution is irrelevant. I think it is very curious that he was able to revert long stretches of vandalism by two vandals with very similar names almost immediately after they happened. If you could do me a favor, run CheckUser on Adambro, BL4NK3R, and BU99ERY and make sure that they don't have similar IPs. Thanks. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'm not interested neither in a blocking war. I just feel we shouldn't block users without valid accusations. You made a good case and Adambro should be warned and monitored but I don't feel he deserved an infinite block (except if he really is a sockpuppet). Twice he reverted vandalism really quick but this does not prove anything, I have done that before. I do not have the rights to use the checkuser, you may want to check this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50 list]. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:02, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the help and information. I will be more cautious from now on. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:18, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::::You are welcome but be careful, I haven't seen a lot of people win an edit war against a senior admin, however legitimate it may be.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:42, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Um... ==

How can you block people who don't have a first name and last initial username when you yourself don't follow the policy? You're banning innocent users that want to join. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 17:54, 13 January 2012 (EST)

My real name is Anthony Parker, so TonyPark is a perfectly acceptable name under the policy, the point of which is to keep frivolous, anti-intellectual usernames out. Besides, its not like I permanently banned them, they can just go and make a new account with an acceptable user name. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Actually, he can, and will, unblock himself. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:26, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Then he'll come after you. [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:27, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yeah, but he knows he has lost the respect of this site, blocking me is irrelevant.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:33, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::From what I see, he has no right to take any action against you. If he were to take action, it would do little more than further reveal his questionable tactics on this site. However, I can't help but feel that blocking him was an act of provocation. If he decides to block you, it would be your own doing, even if it isn't deserved. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:36, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

:::Conservative's grasp on reality is erratic. He divides the world into two categories; good moral Christians who naturally support his crusading efforts, and liberal atheists who hate him because they are perverse, he relishes their disapproval and their attention. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AConservative Check his block log], your message isn't going to sink in, after all your obviously a liberal atheist and probably gay. He will find a way to accommodate the facts to his worldview. Conservative should be sympathized with not disliked, remember that he truly believes everything he says. His articles are an expression of what is going on in his mind. Can you imagine living in that world? [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:45, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::Conservative is not my concern. I want the site to see how ridiculous he is. He has a vested interest in keeping his fingers lodged firmly in his ears.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::Oh, everyone already sees that. But Conservative writes materiel that generates a lot of page views, and he contributes massively to the site, he contribute something like a quarter of the edits. And as long as Conservative keeps pumping out content Andy will give him free a hand; despite whatever impact editing might be having on Conservatives mental health and whatever impact his behavior has on the overall community. Notice how often Andy keeps crowing over vague increases in site traffic. He doesn't seem to care whether people are coming here to laugh at us. It's the ratings that matter and Conservative is great for ratings. [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 21:02, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::::Well, even he can agree that his name is in violation of naming policy. Its a fairly straightforward issue, perhaps he should have read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before he started editing.

== Awesome ==

That was a very good block. Thanks! [[User:ThankYouTonyPark|ThankYouTonyPark]] 20:28, 13 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-14T01:52:59Z

TonyPark: /* Um... */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:19, 7 January 2012 (EST)}}

==Block of Adambro==
Have you used the checkuser tool for that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:22, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't believe I have access to the CheckUser tool. It's under Special Pages, right? I wasn't able to find it. My decision to block Adambro came from analyzing his contributions. He has a large number of very minor edits and talk page posts, mostly pushing liberal POV. He also seemed to clean up the vandalism within a minute of each attack happening, as though he were trying to "build cred" with the site. Mostly, he was an argumentative liberal nitpicker who didn't feel the need to contribute anything to the site. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:34, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::By the way, I just check your contributions and I wonder how fast you got your block rights: 1st article on the 6th, then mostly contributions in [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] that shows how much you love your [[pseudo-science]] of [[Evolution]], then you got your block rights on the 9th ! I unblocked Adambro‎, feel free to discuss the matter with me. Reverting vandalism in less than 2 minutes does not prove anything. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:35, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not interested in a blocking war with you. I blocked Adambro out of a genuine concern that he is a deep-cover parodist. My belief in evolution is irrelevant. I think it is very curious that he was able to revert long stretches of vandalism by two vandals with very similar names almost immediately after they happened. If you could do me a favor, run CheckUser on Adambro, BL4NK3R, and BU99ERY and make sure that they don't have similar IPs. Thanks. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'm not interested neither in a blocking war. I just feel we shouldn't block users without valid accusations. You made a good case and Adambro should be warned and monitored but I don't feel he deserved an infinite block (except if he really is a sockpuppet). Twice he reverted vandalism really quick but this does not prove anything, I have done that before. I do not have the rights to use the checkuser, you may want to check this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50 list]. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:02, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the help and information. I will be more cautious from now on. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:18, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::::You are welcome but be careful, I haven't seen a lot of people win an edit war against a senior admin, however legitimate it may be.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:42, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Um... ==

How can you block people who don't have a first name and last initial username when you yourself don't follow the policy? You're banning innocent users that want to join. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 17:54, 13 January 2012 (EST)

My real name is Anthony Parker, so TonyPark is a perfectly acceptable name under the policy, the point of which is to keep frivolous, anti-intellectual usernames out. Besides, its not like I permanently banned them, they can just go and make a new account with an acceptable user name. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Actually, he can, and will, unblock himself. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:26, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Then he'll come after you. [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:27, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yeah, but he knows he has lost the respect of this site, blocking me is irrelevant.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:33, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::From what I see, he has no right to take any action against you. If he were to take action, it would do little more than further reveal his questionable tactics on this site. However, I can't help but feel that blocking him was an act of provocation. If he decides to block you, it would be your own doing, even if it isn't deserved. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:36, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

:::Conservative's grasp on reality is erratic. He divides the world into two categories; good moral Christians who naturally support his crusading efforts, and liberal atheists who hate him because they are perverse, he relishes their disapproval and their attention. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AConservative Check his block log], your message isn't going to sink in, after all your obviously a liberal atheist and probably gay. He will find a way to accommodate the facts to his worldview. Conservative should be sympathized with not disliked, remember that he truly believes everything he says. His articles are an expression of what is going on in his mind. Can you imagine living in that world? [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:45, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::Conservative is not my concern. I want the site to see how ridiculous he is. He has a vested interest in keeping his fingers lodged firmly in his ears.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Awesome ==

That was a very good block. Thanks! [[User:ThankYouTonyPark|ThankYouTonyPark]] 20:28, 13 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-14T01:33:15Z

TonyPark: /* Um... */

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-14T01:10:43Z

TonyPark: hypocrisy is a liberal virtue

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433 Source: Christian Post] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Ha, ha, '''diagnosises'''. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:''Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?''
:*Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]], as so much is written here about it already.
:*Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these ''unanswerable'' question. And even ''incorrect'' answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
:*You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
:*And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-14T00:55:02Z

TonyPark: /* Um... */

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T20:25:31Z

TonyPark: /* Personal attacks */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [[http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433|Source: Christian Post]] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T17:46:29Z

TonyPark: /* Open question to readers of this page */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T17:18:06Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */ sig

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T17:17:48Z

TonyPark: /* What a creationist would reply */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T16:50:34Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T16:35:12Z

TonyPark: /* Open question to readers of this page */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?

2012-01-13T05:35:31Z

TonyPark: /* No it's not compatible, quite the opposite */

The question has not meaning as natural selection does not occur in human civilization where virtually every individual live to child bearing age and Marxism does function in nature only in human civilization.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest that natural selection does occur. Even if it were possible to ensure that each person had two children, the act of ensuring it happened is a form of selection. Some people have more kids than others, it might not be an active process but that is not in the nature of natural selection.

I would suggest that whoever thought up this topic explain exactly what is meant here. The two are almost completely unrelated to one another(Other than the idea of change). So, really, what is being got at here?

==No it's not compatible, quite the opposite==
Marxism in the form of socialism/communism, and stresses social equality. Those who are at the top of society has to contribute their share of the wealth in order to balance out those at the bottom of society. Planned economies, etc are ways to "equalize" everyone. Economic socialism was also something on the lines of what Jesus taught.

Darwin's natural selection is actually more like capitalism. You work to accomplish individualistic goals in self interest. When everyone pursues self interest, the result is society actually benefits as a whole.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:30, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Stalin certainly didn't like it very much. His government forced scientists to adhere to a Lamarckian evolutionary model, as opposed to Darwinian, and the result was widespread famine and scientific paralysis. When the government interferes with the scientific process, the result is almost always a mess.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 00:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T03:29:29Z

TonyPark:

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T02:02:37Z

TonyPark:

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T01:45:15Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T01:10:26Z

TonyPark:

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T01:08:08Z

TonyPark:

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T00:42:25Z

TonyPark: /* Heresy hunting */

Rick Santorum

2012-01-13T00:17:34Z

TonyPark: vicious lie propagated by pro abortion liberals to smear santorum

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Rick Santorum''' (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958 - ) is an American lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views, but he would endorse and aggressively campaign for [[pro-abortion]] candidates against [[pro-life]] opponents. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

<blockquote>
Santorum was an author and floor manager of the landmark "Welfare Reform Act" which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. Senator Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion" as well as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", and the "Combating Autism Act" because he believes each and every individual has value and the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. <ref> [http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick Why Rick?]</ref>
</blockquote>

A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "[[Santorum Amendment]]" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to undermine curricula which present the [[theory of evolution]] in a dogmatic way, but amendment opponents said it the language would have the effect of supporting the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s, which they regard as [[Creationism]] rather than as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Santorum is currently a candidate for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential Election]].
==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] became obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argued that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they knew the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. Since they had no legitimate arguments, they could only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks.
==Dan Savage==
Homosexual advice columnist [[Dan Savage]] instigated a campaign on [[Google]] to associate Santorum's name with vile slang. By enlisting the help of readers of his column, mostly college students experimenting with sexual deviancy, he redirected legitimate searches for Santorum's name to a slanderous website he created, urging people to spread the candidate's name as a vile Internet meme. That children are often the first to absorb new Internet content was apparently of no concern to the gay rights activist, who also encouraged writers to his newspaper column to address him as "Dear Faggot."<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340</ref>

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606</ref>, Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

<blockquote>
In the [[Iowa]] caucuses, January, 3, 2012, Santorum and [[Mitt Romney]] Fight to a Draw. In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes, offering Rick Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mitt Romney. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Vote] </ref>
</blockquote>

Rick Santorum and his wife Karen are the parents of seven children: Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter, Patrick and Isabella.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T00:12:20Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T23:56:02Z

TonyPark: /* What a creationist would reply */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T22:59:31Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T22:36:52Z

TonyPark: /* What a creationist would reply */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ?

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T22:24:43Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ?

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T22:00:08Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:52:59Z

TonyPark: /* How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:48:37Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:36:39Z

TonyPark: /* How did sex originate? */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:24:04Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:17:28Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:09:24Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T21:04:32Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T20:59:59Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T20:55:42Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */ typo

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T20:55:13Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T20:55:02Z

TonyPark: /* What an evolutionist would say */

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T20:51:23Z

TonyPark: /* How did life originate? */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2012-01-12T05:00:05Z

TonyPark:

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

==Answers to 15 questions==
The debate page on the 15 Questions actually has answers to all of the questions. I think this article should reflect that fact. Something like, "Editors on Conservapedia, however, have been able to provide answers to all of the questions, putting their usefulness, and the validity of the Question Evolution Campaign, into serious doubt." [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 23:57, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== "Question Evolution" Link ==

Under the "Notes" section, the first link is supposed to bring the user to the Question Evolution! page on the Creation Ministries website, correct? Currently, the link is broken. It should say, "creation.com/question-evolution," whereas right now it says "creation.com/question-evIolution."

Note the "I" between "v" and "o" in "evolution." I cannot fix this link, so someone with that power may wish to do so. [[User:JHunt1487|JHunt1487]] 14:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Fixed thinks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! ==

The Bible has quite a few dates and talks about lots of old men who supposedly lived for 900 years. Using these dates and records, Christian apologist Bishop Ussher created the most commonly accepted chronology that claims that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Christian Fundamentalists still accept this date or at least a very similar one. Here are seven reasons that they are wrong!
#The Pyramids Everyone knows that they are there. Even Southern Baptist apologists can't deny their existence. So how does their very existence destroy Biblical inerrantism? Because every single one of them was built hundreds of years before the Bible says that the Flood supposedly wiped out humanity. The Great Pyramid of Khufu in Giza was built around 2550 BC according to Egyptian records. That is 200 years before the flood. Embarrassingly, God's miles high flood made no mark on the pyramids or their contents. The mummies and artifacts inside are still dry and in great shape. If there really had been enough water to cover the Earth, it would have exerted a force of at least 1.8 million pounds per square foot on the Pyramids (assuming that the water was high enough to cover the entire Earth and all the mountains as the Bible says). This amount of pressure would have completely destroyed the antiquated architecture and mummies.
::''Where did you come up with your Flood date?''
#Tree Rings Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, is an interesting and informative science that can tell us much about history. Every year, each tree creates a new growth ring. The size of this ring depends on the conditions of that year. Scientists can take cores of these trees and count the number of tree rings in order to give the age of the tree. Each year has a distinctive pattern depending on the local conditions. Amazingly, we have a species of tree, known as Bristlecone Pines, that provide a record of tree rings that extends back 11,000 years to 9,000 BC. This is an obvious problem for those that believe that the Earth was still "matter unorganized" back then. We even have a tree, known as Methuselah, that has now been alive for 4,842 years and counting as shown by its rings. That means that the tree was born in 2831 BC. This tree (and many others) kept living right on through the Flood that supposedly killed everything in 2350. The lowly Bristlecone Pine has toppled the Holy Bible simply by living when it should have died.
::''5,000 years ago is when the Flood happened, and bristlecone pines have been shown to be younger than that. Where is this 11,000 year tree-ring record you speak of?''
#Carbon Dating Radiometric dating is one of the strongest killers of Biblical literacy and one that creationists love to hate. Basically, radiometric dating measures the amount of an isotope and its decayed products are present in a given sample. It is based on the universally admitted fact that radioactive things decay at a certain rate. Through simple math, one can figure out the age of the sample. Radiometric dating is important because it proves that fossils are much older than a few thousand years old. This data shows that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years which obviously destroys the Ussher Chronology. Creationists often claim that "decay rates may have changed" or "I carbon dated my dead cat and the answer was off, so..." I have heard all kinds of silly attempts to discredit radiometric dating. The fact remains that we have used this method with not only carbon-14, but with more than 50 other isotopes to confirm the dates. Each of these 50 isotopes decays at a different rate. Yet, they all agree that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. This is important. The half-lives for isotopes range from 70*10-18 seconds for Be-8 to 2.28*1024 years for Te-128. This is a huge range of time. That means that God would have had to speed up each of the 50 isotope's half-lives by vastly different factors in order to fool us into thinking that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How ridiculous. My question is: why do creationists make insane claims about basic laws of physics in order to defend a Bronze Age myth?
::''You can believe what you want to believe, but there are major flaws based around the word "assumption" in regards to radiometric dating; too many people have too many problems with it to be reliable.'' [http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm]
#Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian Before 2250 BC and the Tower of Babel, according to Biblical mythology, the only language on the planet was Adamic. All of the other languages, including Egyptian and Sumerian, were created by the confusion of tongues. Therefore, it is devastating that we have found hundreds of examples of writing that date to a thousand years before the Tower of Babel. Egyptian writings are also powerful evidence against Biblical literalism. The first known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette which is a collection of writing that dates to 3200 BC. This writing existed 1,000 years before the Tower of Babel when the Egyptian language was supposedly created. The first examples of Sumerian Cuneiform date to 3300 BC. Obviously, two completely different languages existed long before the Tower of Babel "created" them all and neither of them was Adamic.
::''For years scholars have been stating that written language is no older than 5,000 years (the Flood date again!), and recently things began to change. Could this change have been connected with militant atheism and a hostility towards the Bible?''
#Egyptian Dynastic Records Thanks to a well-developed system of record keeping and well-preserved papyri (which oddly enough, survived the Flood), we know an amazing amount about the Egyptian dynasties of the Old Kingdom. We know the exact years that each pharoah rose to power and then was replaced beginning with the Pharoah Zanakht, who rose to power in 2649. This line continues unbroken until the Pharoah Unas (2356-2323 BC) who obviously survived the "Global Flood" in 2349. This line continues until Nemtyenmzaf (2255-2246 BC) who reigned while God was changing everyone's language. Luckily, God forgot Egypt existed and no major disruptive linguistic change occurred during those few centuries when the Tower of Babel suppposedly happened.
::''Are you stating here that Pharoah Zanakht is the first Egyptian king? And are you sure about those dates? David Rohl did some checking and found out the scholars were wrong by about 350 years.'''
#Kangaroos, Lemurs, Frogs, and Emus Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of the more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450 foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah's Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most Marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline for Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the Lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.
:''Those questions are easily answered by Genesis, and an order by God that they go to their appointed places after the Flood. After all, how did people migrate out from the Old World to the New? Did they cross land bridges? And did they take several thousand years to do it...or did they actually do it in a few months? Wasn't the island of Krakatoa repopulated with animal and plant life within a couple years after an 1883 eruption which killed off everything, including bacteria?''
#Oil and Coal Every time a creationist drives he is benefitting from the fact that he is wrong. Petroleum only exists because the Earth is billions of years old. As most know, it is formed when the remains of phytoplankton and zooplankton settle to the bottom of the sea and are compressed and decomposed in anaerobic conditions. There is no other way to make petroleum. Enormous amounts of heat, pressure, and time are require to create petroleum. Only geologic time could do it. The gas in your car is great proof that Christian Fundamentalists are wrong when they said that the Earth was 6,000 years old.
::''What exactly do you mean by "as most know?" When phytoplankton and zooplankton settle on the bottom of the sea they are disposed of by scavengers before any sort of burial takes place, and this little fact is observable. And it isn't just dead animal and plant life that is being consumed; try looking at the remains of an iron-hulled ship that used to be called "Titanic". Courtesy of the recent oil well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico, we have the news from several sources that there are biological critters which eat oil. So, where is the oil coming from if it's being eaten away every time an animal dies?''

Unless all 7 of these questions can be answered, Creationism must be dismissed as pseudoscience. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 23:20, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::Basically, FRodgers, all those questions were answered, and they were answered too many times by too many people with a lot of evidence to back it all up. The first thing you had better do is to disprove the existence of God beyond all doubt; then you can talk about why we should not believe in what you call "pseudoscience". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:09, 2 December 2011 (EST)

::FRodgers, I see the evolutionists are getting desperate because they still can't the 15 questions. Second, the fluff you put forth certainly should not be taken seriously. For example, "Peter Clayton remarked that “it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology” (1994, p. 12, emp. added). Sir Alan Gardiner, the foremost Egyptologist of the twentieth century, spoke of “lamentable gaps” and “many a doubtful attribution,” finally exclaiming: “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters” (1961, p. 48, emp. added). Noting that our present knowledge of Egyptian chronology is “far from satisfactory,” Olaf Toffteen, curator of the Hibbard Egyptian Library in Chicago, explained that the deficiency can be attributed “not to the scarcity of material, but rather to its abundance. This material...exhibits so many contradictions that Egyptologists and historians differ radically in their theories on Egyptian chronology” (1907, 1:149). This indefiniteness does not remove all validity from the chronology, but it must be recognized that the ancient chronology of Egypt, though well established, is far from infallible."[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:38, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Here is some addition information: "The uncertainty to which these scholars refer, results from the shaky foundation upon which Egyptian chronology is built. Manetho, the source of “the basic structure or skeleton of Egyptian chronology that we use today” (Clayton, p. 9), is unreliable and inaccurate. In the introduction to his translation of that historian, W.G. Waddell suggested “there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning” (1997, p. xxv). Further indicting this ancient source, Breasted confessed: “Wherever he can be controlled, Manetho is generally wrong in his figures, and any chronology based on his data is hopelessly astray” (1927, 1:32). Whatever the reason for Manetho’s untrustworthiness, one immediately sees the unreliability of a system whose “basic structure” is “hopelessly astray.”"[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:::And the Question Evolution! campaign relies entirely on quote mining, misrepresentation of science, extremely flawed assumption, critical misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, and outright lies. I don't see your point. While there is some dissent about dates regarding Egypt, the consensus is that Egypt formed pre-flood and survived until the Greeks moved in. You can't explain that. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 00:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:Don't you have any recent references? You can find some good stuff at my YouTube video, "More analysis of the Flood myth" or on my channel, voiceoftruth2006. I'm happy to debate you, by the way. --[[User:VOT2011|VOT2011]] 23:48, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Evolutionists, all your evolutionist jargon, evolutionist whining/kvetching and evolutionist consensus doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This campaign will throw creationist sabots into the machinery of evolutionary indoctrination. Get used to the Question evolution! campaign because you are not going to stop it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:17, 2 December 2011 (EST)

==Archiving==
Archiving shouldn't be used as a tool for [[last wordism]]! I un-archived those arguments to which someone contributed less than a day ago. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Third-party coverage ==

I'd like it if the article showed some coverage from outside the Question Evolution! blog network. Can anyone point to such sources? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:52, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:Just Google it. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:30, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Everything on the first page appears to be either content from the QE! campaign network reposted to other pages or twaddle critical of the campaign posted by atheists. Isn't there some positive publicity that wasn't created by the people running the campaign? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:47, 31 December 2011 (EST)
:::Third party coverage and press is given in the article. I suggest actually reading the article before commenting on the talk page. I guess it's true that atheists have a hard time finding evidence because they don't want to see it or look for it. "Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson. see: [[Atheism Quotes]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::That was uncalled for; please do not accuse me of being an atheist. I want this article to be strong and while it's true that I missed a short few lines in the middle of the article, I was looking in the references which by and large fit the pattern I mentioned above (38 of 44 are to either ShockofGod's YouTube channel or to one of the campaign's creators; the other 6 do not mention the campaign at all). Those pages are all dated before September 1; is the media simply ignoring us? Surely a local paper or similar has run an article. [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 16:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Rand, If it is important for you to know if there has been media coverage, then ask your locale librarian to help you do a search on newspapers coverage. Since the only thing that is necessary for the campaign to be effective is for students to ask their teachers the 15 questions in class and for people to examine the questions with an open mind, I don't see why media coverage is paramount though at this early stage. For example, the Question evolution blog (network) has only been around a month, as can be seen [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-11-23T22:11:00-08:00&max-results=7 HERE]. The Traditional Values Coalition seemed to jump in right around the beginning of school in late August based on their website and the WND story which cited their website.[http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/337937/] That is only 3 months ago. Maybe it is just me, but Christians tend to be more patient and tenacious and don't expect instant results nor do they expect mainstream media validation. Plus, there are so many ways now to get the word out without the use of mainstream media. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if social movements go through stages and some preparation, recruiting and organizing is involved before deciding to seek attention from press outlets in a significant way. Plus, although some social movements probably start out with a book/movie/video, I am guessing the converse also happens and social movements develop material as they go along. I would think that books/movies/videos tend to attract more media attention. I know that impatient people like the fire, aim, ready approach, but I personally think the ready, aim, fire approach has more wisdom. :) However, I can see how a person who comments on a talk page before carefully reading an article would feel differently. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::There's no reason for the snark. Please refrain. [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:35, 4 January 2012 (EST)

==Who is this campaign aimed to ?==
Is it aimed to students ? Is it aimed to people who are hesitant about creationism/evolution ?<br/>
I ask this question because the only reactions I could see are from militant creationists. Therefore, even if the goal seems laudable, I am not optimistic about the success of this campaign. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:20, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::What is the campaign called? Question evolution! isn't it? It seems obvious to me what the purpose of the campaign is, but maybe I am not thinking hard enough. :) I loved the first video with Pastor Carl Gallup especially the line "Didn't your teacher teach you to question everything?" It seems to me though that the evolutionists/atheists don't like their dogman/religion questioned though and I think Pastor Gallups was suggesting that they are hypocritical.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:43, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Hi Conservative, I understand pretty well the purpose, I am just wondering about the target. Do you know if some people abandoned their belief in evolution because of this campaign ? If evolutionists don't like their religion to be questioned, I suppose this campaign does not target them. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:48, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Again, I think that obvious too. The campaign is called Question evolution! so people with with an open mind. Generally, dogmatic/opinionated people such as militant atheists/evolutionists probably tend not to question their beliefs although Charles Darwin was plagued with doubt about evolution and even late in life and often had overwhelming thoughts the world was designed[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html] so who knows what goes on inside so called dogmatic evolutionists heads. (see: [[Charles Darwin]]). The Question evolution blog posters have indicated several times that they would like to reach young people plus develop curriculum for young people which is not surprising since young people tend to be less dogmatic and opinionated. [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/search?q=teachers] I really don't think this is rocket science. I don't see this very young social movement doing anything radically different than others before them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::How can you speak about open mindedness while you "''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''" ? (I am not an atheist but I believe in listening) --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Did I write that? Second, how much time a day do you pour over the material of "inane, socially challenged atheists/evolutionists"? Is it a hobby of yours? Maybe you should consider engaging in other hobbies. Just a thought. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Well played, Conservative ;) I have to admit that I usually don't listen to "insane, socially challenged atheists/evolutionists" ! But I sometime have a chat with sane, socially admitted atheists/evolutionists ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2012-01-12T04:57:53Z

TonyPark: 15 questions

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

==Answers to 15 questions==
The debate page on the 15 Questions actually has answers to all of the questions. I think this article should reflect that fact. Something like, "Editors on Conservapedia, however, have been able to provide answers to all of the questions, putting their usefulness, and the validity of the Question Evolution Campaign, into serious doubt. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 23:57, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== "Question Evolution" Link ==

Under the "Notes" section, the first link is supposed to bring the user to the Question Evolution! page on the Creation Ministries website, correct? Currently, the link is broken. It should say, "creation.com/question-evolution," whereas right now it says "creation.com/question-evIolution."

Note the "I" between "v" and "o" in "evolution." I cannot fix this link, so someone with that power may wish to do so. [[User:JHunt1487|JHunt1487]] 14:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Fixed thinks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! ==

The Bible has quite a few dates and talks about lots of old men who supposedly lived for 900 years. Using these dates and records, Christian apologist Bishop Ussher created the most commonly accepted chronology that claims that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Christian Fundamentalists still accept this date or at least a very similar one. Here are seven reasons that they are wrong!
#The Pyramids Everyone knows that they are there. Even Southern Baptist apologists can't deny their existence. So how does their very existence destroy Biblical inerrantism? Because every single one of them was built hundreds of years before the Bible says that the Flood supposedly wiped out humanity. The Great Pyramid of Khufu in Giza was built around 2550 BC according to Egyptian records. That is 200 years before the flood. Embarrassingly, God's miles high flood made no mark on the pyramids or their contents. The mummies and artifacts inside are still dry and in great shape. If there really had been enough water to cover the Earth, it would have exerted a force of at least 1.8 million pounds per square foot on the Pyramids (assuming that the water was high enough to cover the entire Earth and all the mountains as the Bible says). This amount of pressure would have completely destroyed the antiquated architecture and mummies.
::''Where did you come up with your Flood date?''
#Tree Rings Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, is an interesting and informative science that can tell us much about history. Every year, each tree creates a new growth ring. The size of this ring depends on the conditions of that year. Scientists can take cores of these trees and count the number of tree rings in order to give the age of the tree. Each year has a distinctive pattern depending on the local conditions. Amazingly, we have a species of tree, known as Bristlecone Pines, that provide a record of tree rings that extends back 11,000 years to 9,000 BC. This is an obvious problem for those that believe that the Earth was still "matter unorganized" back then. We even have a tree, known as Methuselah, that has now been alive for 4,842 years and counting as shown by its rings. That means that the tree was born in 2831 BC. This tree (and many others) kept living right on through the Flood that supposedly killed everything in 2350. The lowly Bristlecone Pine has toppled the Holy Bible simply by living when it should have died.
::''5,000 years ago is when the Flood happened, and bristlecone pines have been shown to be younger than that. Where is this 11,000 year tree-ring record you speak of?''
#Carbon Dating Radiometric dating is one of the strongest killers of Biblical literacy and one that creationists love to hate. Basically, radiometric dating measures the amount of an isotope and its decayed products are present in a given sample. It is based on the universally admitted fact that radioactive things decay at a certain rate. Through simple math, one can figure out the age of the sample. Radiometric dating is important because it proves that fossils are much older than a few thousand years old. This data shows that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years which obviously destroys the Ussher Chronology. Creationists often claim that "decay rates may have changed" or "I carbon dated my dead cat and the answer was off, so..." I have heard all kinds of silly attempts to discredit radiometric dating. The fact remains that we have used this method with not only carbon-14, but with more than 50 other isotopes to confirm the dates. Each of these 50 isotopes decays at a different rate. Yet, they all agree that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. This is important. The half-lives for isotopes range from 70*10-18 seconds for Be-8 to 2.28*1024 years for Te-128. This is a huge range of time. That means that God would have had to speed up each of the 50 isotope's half-lives by vastly different factors in order to fool us into thinking that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How ridiculous. My question is: why do creationists make insane claims about basic laws of physics in order to defend a Bronze Age myth?
::''You can believe what you want to believe, but there are major flaws based around the word "assumption" in regards to radiometric dating; too many people have too many problems with it to be reliable.'' [http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm]
#Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian Before 2250 BC and the Tower of Babel, according to Biblical mythology, the only language on the planet was Adamic. All of the other languages, including Egyptian and Sumerian, were created by the confusion of tongues. Therefore, it is devastating that we have found hundreds of examples of writing that date to a thousand years before the Tower of Babel. Egyptian writings are also powerful evidence against Biblical literalism. The first known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette which is a collection of writing that dates to 3200 BC. This writing existed 1,000 years before the Tower of Babel when the Egyptian language was supposedly created. The first examples of Sumerian Cuneiform date to 3300 BC. Obviously, two completely different languages existed long before the Tower of Babel "created" them all and neither of them was Adamic.
::''For years scholars have been stating that written language is no older than 5,000 years (the Flood date again!), and recently things began to change. Could this change have been connected with militant atheism and a hostility towards the Bible?''
#Egyptian Dynastic Records Thanks to a well-developed system of record keeping and well-preserved papyri (which oddly enough, survived the Flood), we know an amazing amount about the Egyptian dynasties of the Old Kingdom. We know the exact years that each pharoah rose to power and then was replaced beginning with the Pharoah Zanakht, who rose to power in 2649. This line continues unbroken until the Pharoah Unas (2356-2323 BC) who obviously survived the "Global Flood" in 2349. This line continues until Nemtyenmzaf (2255-2246 BC) who reigned while God was changing everyone's language. Luckily, God forgot Egypt existed and no major disruptive linguistic change occurred during those few centuries when the Tower of Babel suppposedly happened.
::''Are you stating here that Pharoah Zanakht is the first Egyptian king? And are you sure about those dates? David Rohl did some checking and found out the scholars were wrong by about 350 years.'''
#Kangaroos, Lemurs, Frogs, and Emus Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of the more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450 foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah's Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most Marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline for Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the Lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.
:''Those questions are easily answered by Genesis, and an order by God that they go to their appointed places after the Flood. After all, how did people migrate out from the Old World to the New? Did they cross land bridges? And did they take several thousand years to do it...or did they actually do it in a few months? Wasn't the island of Krakatoa repopulated with animal and plant life within a couple years after an 1883 eruption which killed off everything, including bacteria?''
#Oil and Coal Every time a creationist drives he is benefitting from the fact that he is wrong. Petroleum only exists because the Earth is billions of years old. As most know, it is formed when the remains of phytoplankton and zooplankton settle to the bottom of the sea and are compressed and decomposed in anaerobic conditions. There is no other way to make petroleum. Enormous amounts of heat, pressure, and time are require to create petroleum. Only geologic time could do it. The gas in your car is great proof that Christian Fundamentalists are wrong when they said that the Earth was 6,000 years old.
::''What exactly do you mean by "as most know?" When phytoplankton and zooplankton settle on the bottom of the sea they are disposed of by scavengers before any sort of burial takes place, and this little fact is observable. And it isn't just dead animal and plant life that is being consumed; try looking at the remains of an iron-hulled ship that used to be called "Titanic". Courtesy of the recent oil well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico, we have the news from several sources that there are biological critters which eat oil. So, where is the oil coming from if it's being eaten away every time an animal dies?''

Unless all 7 of these questions can be answered, Creationism must be dismissed as pseudoscience. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 23:20, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::Basically, FRodgers, all those questions were answered, and they were answered too many times by too many people with a lot of evidence to back it all up. The first thing you had better do is to disprove the existence of God beyond all doubt; then you can talk about why we should not believe in what you call "pseudoscience". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:09, 2 December 2011 (EST)

::FRodgers, I see the evolutionists are getting desperate because they still can't the 15 questions. Second, the fluff you put forth certainly should not be taken seriously. For example, "Peter Clayton remarked that “it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology” (1994, p. 12, emp. added). Sir Alan Gardiner, the foremost Egyptologist of the twentieth century, spoke of “lamentable gaps” and “many a doubtful attribution,” finally exclaiming: “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters” (1961, p. 48, emp. added). Noting that our present knowledge of Egyptian chronology is “far from satisfactory,” Olaf Toffteen, curator of the Hibbard Egyptian Library in Chicago, explained that the deficiency can be attributed “not to the scarcity of material, but rather to its abundance. This material...exhibits so many contradictions that Egyptologists and historians differ radically in their theories on Egyptian chronology” (1907, 1:149). This indefiniteness does not remove all validity from the chronology, but it must be recognized that the ancient chronology of Egypt, though well established, is far from infallible."[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:38, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Here is some addition information: "The uncertainty to which these scholars refer, results from the shaky foundation upon which Egyptian chronology is built. Manetho, the source of “the basic structure or skeleton of Egyptian chronology that we use today” (Clayton, p. 9), is unreliable and inaccurate. In the introduction to his translation of that historian, W.G. Waddell suggested “there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning” (1997, p. xxv). Further indicting this ancient source, Breasted confessed: “Wherever he can be controlled, Manetho is generally wrong in his figures, and any chronology based on his data is hopelessly astray” (1927, 1:32). Whatever the reason for Manetho’s untrustworthiness, one immediately sees the unreliability of a system whose “basic structure” is “hopelessly astray.”"[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:::And the Question Evolution! campaign relies entirely on quote mining, misrepresentation of science, extremely flawed assumption, critical misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, and outright lies. I don't see your point. While there is some dissent about dates regarding Egypt, the consensus is that Egypt formed pre-flood and survived until the Greeks moved in. You can't explain that. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 00:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:Don't you have any recent references? You can find some good stuff at my YouTube video, "More analysis of the Flood myth" or on my channel, voiceoftruth2006. I'm happy to debate you, by the way. --[[User:VOT2011|VOT2011]] 23:48, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Evolutionists, all your evolutionist jargon, evolutionist whining/kvetching and evolutionist consensus doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This campaign will throw creationist sabots into the machinery of evolutionary indoctrination. Get used to the Question evolution! campaign because you are not going to stop it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:17, 2 December 2011 (EST)

==Archiving==
Archiving shouldn't be used as a tool for [[last wordism]]! I un-archived those arguments to which someone contributed less than a day ago. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Third-party coverage ==

I'd like it if the article showed some coverage from outside the Question Evolution! blog network. Can anyone point to such sources? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:52, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:Just Google it. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:30, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Everything on the first page appears to be either content from the QE! campaign network reposted to other pages or twaddle critical of the campaign posted by atheists. Isn't there some positive publicity that wasn't created by the people running the campaign? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:47, 31 December 2011 (EST)
:::Third party coverage and press is given in the article. I suggest actually reading the article before commenting on the talk page. I guess it's true that atheists have a hard time finding evidence because they don't want to see it or look for it. "Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson. see: [[Atheism Quotes]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::That was uncalled for; please do not accuse me of being an atheist. I want this article to be strong and while it's true that I missed a short few lines in the middle of the article, I was looking in the references which by and large fit the pattern I mentioned above (38 of 44 are to either ShockofGod's YouTube channel or to one of the campaign's creators; the other 6 do not mention the campaign at all). Those pages are all dated before September 1; is the media simply ignoring us? Surely a local paper or similar has run an article. [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 16:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Rand, If it is important for you to know if there has been media coverage, then ask your locale librarian to help you do a search on newspapers coverage. Since the only thing that is necessary for the campaign to be effective is for students to ask their teachers the 15 questions in class and for people to examine the questions with an open mind, I don't see why media coverage is paramount though at this early stage. For example, the Question evolution blog (network) has only been around a month, as can be seen [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-11-23T22:11:00-08:00&max-results=7 HERE]. The Traditional Values Coalition seemed to jump in right around the beginning of school in late August based on their website and the WND story which cited their website.[http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/337937/] That is only 3 months ago. Maybe it is just me, but Christians tend to be more patient and tenacious and don't expect instant results nor do they expect mainstream media validation. Plus, there are so many ways now to get the word out without the use of mainstream media. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if social movements go through stages and some preparation, recruiting and organizing is involved before deciding to seek attention from press outlets in a significant way. Plus, although some social movements probably start out with a book/movie/video, I am guessing the converse also happens and social movements develop material as they go along. I would think that books/movies/videos tend to attract more media attention. I know that impatient people like the fire, aim, ready approach, but I personally think the ready, aim, fire approach has more wisdom. :) However, I can see how a person who comments on a talk page before carefully reading an article would feel differently. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::There's no reason for the snark. Please refrain. [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:35, 4 January 2012 (EST)

==Who is this campaign aimed to ?==
Is it aimed to students ? Is it aimed to people who are hesitant about creationism/evolution ?<br/>
I ask this question because the only reactions I could see are from militant creationists. Therefore, even if the goal seems laudable, I am not optimistic about the success of this campaign. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:20, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::What is the campaign called? Question evolution! isn't it? It seems obvious to me what the purpose of the campaign is, but maybe I am not thinking hard enough. :) I loved the first video with Pastor Carl Gallup especially the line "Didn't your teacher teach you to question everything?" It seems to me though that the evolutionists/atheists don't like their dogman/religion questioned though and I think Pastor Gallups was suggesting that they are hypocritical.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:43, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Hi Conservative, I understand pretty well the purpose, I am just wondering about the target. Do you know if some people abandoned their belief in evolution because of this campaign ? If evolutionists don't like their religion to be questioned, I suppose this campaign does not target them. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:48, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Again, I think that obvious too. The campaign is called Question evolution! so people with with an open mind. Generally, dogmatic/opinionated people such as militant atheists/evolutionists probably tend not to question their beliefs although Charles Darwin was plagued with doubt about evolution and even late in life and often had overwhelming thoughts the world was designed[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html] so who knows what goes on inside so called dogmatic evolutionists heads. (see: [[Charles Darwin]]). The Question evolution blog posters have indicated several times that they would like to reach young people plus develop curriculum for young people which is not surprising since young people tend to be less dogmatic and opinionated. [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/search?q=teachers] I really don't think this is rocket science. I don't see this very young social movement doing anything radically different than others before them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::How can you speak about open mindedness while you "''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''" ? (I am not an atheist but I believe in listening) --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Did I write that? Second, how much time a day do you pour over the material of "inane, socially challenged atheists/evolutionists"? Is it a hobby of yours? Maybe you should consider engaging in other hobbies. Just a thought. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Well played, Conservative ;) I have to admit that I usually don't listen to "insane, socially challenged atheists/evolutionists" ! But I sometime have a chat with sane, socially admitted atheists/evolutionists ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-11T22:18:30Z

TonyPark: /* Block of Adambro */

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-11T21:53:36Z

TonyPark: /* Block of Adambro */

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-11T21:34:33Z

TonyPark: /* Block of Adambro */

User talk:Adambro

2012-01-11T21:19:33Z

TonyPark:

{{welcome}}
If you did not already know, please do not edit war, as you did with [[user:RedGoliath]]. Thank you.[[User:SusanP|SusanP]] 12:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

This is your second warning for troublesome editing in 8 hours. Either contribute to the project in a constructive way or face possible blocking. This is your final warning, and I will be watching your activity. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:18, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:I'm confused as to exactly what you are warning me about. In your edit summary you say "2nd edit war warning in 8 hours" but I fail to see how any of my recent edits could be described as edit warring. When I saw my change to [[Age of the Earth]] had been removed again with not much in the way of an explanation, instead of engaging in an edit war and reinstating it again I raised the issue on the talk page as I assumed would be the right course of action though in hindsight I would accept my tone wasn't probably that helpful.

:Looking through your edits around the time you posted this warning, I note you've gone and undone a couple of my edits. In the first case reinstating the word liberal in the [[Gun]] article to describe those involved in the recent riots in England as a liberal riot mob. I still don't understand how exactly those involved could be described as liberal. However, that still isn't an example of edit warring even if you disagree with my view about whether the word is appropriate.

:I also note you've undone to some degree my edit to [[Liberal Democrats]] regarding the largest donor to the party, suggesting a "Liberal loophole". I again don't understand your use of the term liberal in that context. Is "liberal" just being used as a generic insult for people or things you dislike? The "loophole" is simply the main element of the law relating to political donations, that the donor is someone allowed by law to give money to a political party. That's not simply a "technicality in the rules" that the Liberal Democrats have "exploited". Anyway, I shan't undo your edit since that would actually be edit warring. If I'm so inclined I'll raise it on the talk page for discussion.

:I'd therefore be grateful if you could explain exactly what "troublesome editing" or apparent edit warring you are referring to that I should discontinue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 07:59, 11 January 2012 (EST)
----
::I believe he meant talking back, and questioning our goal. In either case, here is the helpful links again.
{{warning}}
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 12:55, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:Well I have those links just above so that isn't too helpful. Perhaps you could advise what the correct way of resolving disagreements regarding content is then if it isn't to discuss those issues? I'd also be grateful if you could point out any examples where I've been "questioning our goal". [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 13:09, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::A quick look at your contributions list shows that the entirety of your activities on this site have been small edits adding liberal POV to articles you don't agree with, punctuated with reverting a bunch of vandalism by what looks like the same vandal/sockpuppet. Tell me, Adam, why is it that every time a vandal shows up with a name like BU99ERY or something similar, you're there to revert the vandalism only a minute later? I've gone through your contribution logs and the pattern is obvious. You're trying to raise your edit count by making minor edits to articles without adding content, and you either are or are cooperating with a vandal who is repeatedly vandalizing this site, only for you to swoop in a minute later to "save" us. You are an obvious fraud and I will not allow you to compromise this project. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:19, 11 January 2012 (EST)