Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists - Revision history

Ayzmo: /* Removed */ new section

2012-03-01T01:12:51Z

Removed: new section

PhilipN at 04:17, January 30, 2012

2012-01-30T04:17:14Z

JHunter at 02:02, January 24, 2012

2012-01-24T02:02:48Z

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

2012-01-24T01:14:46Z

Open question to readers of this page

JHunter at 05:46, January 23, 2012

2012-01-23T05:46:23Z

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

2012-01-14T14:30:07Z

Open question to readers of this page

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

2012-01-14T12:55:31Z

Open question to readers of this page

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

2012-01-14T08:42:48Z

Open question to readers of this page

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

2012-01-14T08:25:09Z

Open question to readers of this page

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

2012-01-14T01:17:04Z

Open question to readers of this page

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, March 1, 2012
Line 211:		Line 211:
	==A few more questions for evolutionists==		==A few more questions for evolutionists==
	As requested by [[User:RudrickBoucher]] (who has been blocked), I provide a few more questions for evolutionists here: [[User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists]]. Feel free to post answers on this page.--[[User:PhilipN\|PhilipN]] 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)		As requested by [[User:RudrickBoucher]] (who has been blocked), I provide a few more questions for evolutionists here: [[User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists]]. Feel free to post answers on this page.--[[User:PhilipN\|PhilipN]] 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	== Removed ==
		+
		+	I would like to point out that User:Conservative removed this debate from the debate topics page. I think that deserves an explanation. [[User:Ayzmo\|Ayzmo :)]] 20:12, 29 February 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:17, January 30, 2012
Line 208:		Line 208:

	::::::::The trouble with the "rebuttals" to the "answers" given at the links which User:Conservative posted are that the answers are not reflective of the answers given here, nor the answers which are commonly given by experts in evolutionary biology. The "answers" rebutted at the linked pages are aimed at commonly-encountered creationist talking points (implying that they were authored with the intention of providing "straw men"). --[[User:JHunter\|JHunter]] 21:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)		::::::::The trouble with the "rebuttals" to the "answers" given at the links which User:Conservative posted are that the answers are not reflective of the answers given here, nor the answers which are commonly given by experts in evolutionary biology. The "answers" rebutted at the linked pages are aimed at commonly-encountered creationist talking points (implying that they were authored with the intention of providing "straw men"). --[[User:JHunter\|JHunter]] 21:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	==A few more questions for evolutionists==
		+	As requested by [[User:RudrickBoucher]] (who has been blocked), I provide a few more questions for evolutionists here: [[User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists]]. Feel free to post answers on this page.--[[User:PhilipN\|PhilipN]] 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, January 24, 2012
Line 206:		Line 206:

	::::::I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)		::::::I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)
		+
		+	::::::::The trouble with the "rebuttals" to the "answers" given at the links which User:Conservative posted are that the answers are not reflective of the answers given here, nor the answers which are commonly given by experts in evolutionary biology. The "answers" rebutted at the linked pages are aimed at commonly-encountered creationist talking points (implying that they were authored with the intention of providing "straw men"). --[[User:JHunter\|JHunter]] 21:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:14, January 24, 2012
Line 204:		Line 204:

	::::::After almost ten days, I think it's safe to interpret his failure to submit scientific evidence in support his position as an admission of defeat. --[[User:JHunter\|JHunter]] 00:46, 23 January 2012 (EST)		::::::After almost ten days, I think it's safe to interpret his failure to submit scientific evidence in support his position as an admission of defeat. --[[User:JHunter\|JHunter]] 00:46, 23 January 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	::::::I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ::::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)
+:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Kenny, 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)
@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 [[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)
+::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 <s>           </s>. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 ==Open memo to User:Conservative==
@@ Line 202: / Line 202: @@
 :::Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, January 14, 2012
Line 200:		Line 200:
	:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.		:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
	:::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)		:::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	:::Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, January 14, 2012
Line 196:		Line 196:
	::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)		::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
	::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative\|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)		::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative\|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	:::''And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. '' To write this sentence on the talk-page of an article in which the 15 questions '''''are''''' answered reminds me of the announcement of [[Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf]] (a.k.a. '''Baghdad Bob''', '''Comical Ali''') who claimed that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates while American soldiers were already all over the city. If you fail to understand the reference, I'll spell it out for you: your statement is highly ironic.
		+	:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
		+	:::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, January 14, 2012
Line 195:		Line 195:
	::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.		::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
	::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)		::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
		+	::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative\|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:25, January 14, 2012
Line 191:		Line 191:

	:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)		:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)
		+
		+	::''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.''
		+	::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
		+	::[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, January 14, 2012
Line 189:		Line 189:

	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)		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)
		+
		+	:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath\|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)