User:Airdish/WhyConservapediaIsWrongAbout Evolution

Taken from conservapedia on 30 November 2007. Currently nominated for deletion.

Why Conservapedia is Wrong About Evolution

ConociousIN (Talk | contribs) (New page: First of all. Your little statistic about how Americans don't believe in evolution is way off. If you go to that link you will actually see that in the very next sentence it says that Amer...) Next diff → Revision as of 23:12, 29 November 2007

First of all. Your little statistic about how Americans don't believe in evolution is way off. If you go to that link you will actually see that in the very next sentence it says that Americans believe evolution should be taught over creationism.

Next, by listing all these great scientists that didn't think of evolution you prove nothing. They didn't think of computers either, or microwaves, or space travel, or cars, or nuclear weapons, or the internet. Just because these guys didn't think of it doesn't mean it can't happen. They weren't looking for it. Also, lots of theories are debated! Duh! Just because it didn't catch on right away doesn't mean it's not right. Rarely,do things catch on right away. That's the way the world works.

You can't see evolution happening? That's your reasoning. Can you see God? I thought you guys were good at blindly believing things. By the way, please explain things like viruses and germs growing immune to our treatments. Evolution seems like the right choice. Also, the whole point of evolution is that it takes a long time. Your point is like saying, we can't see a clock's minute hand move so it must not exist. Yes, you can't see it move but you know it's moving! Also, the article you linked to tried to make the argument that after we started teaching evolution we didn't win as many Nobel Prize winners. WTF?

The fossil record does help prove evolution. (From wikipedia) Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry. You say you will be going into more detail on why fossils don't separate evolution. Don't worry, I will be going into more detail on why you're so full of shit you're eyes are brown.

Darwin should get credit for evolution. No one disputes it. It's common fact. Dingus

Anyone, that's anyone with half a brain knows Lamarck's theory is totally different than Darwin's. Lamarck thought that giraffe's necks were long because they stretched them all day so when they had kids the neck would still be long. According to Lamarck if you cut off a rat's tail, it's children won't have tails.

Ok, these what makes you guys really sound retarded. First you say no one ever thought of evolution but then you say the Greeks where teaching it way before him. What are you getting at. Are you trying to sound like idiots?

Pierre Grasse only served as president one time. And he believed in a type of evolution! He didn't support your side. WHY ARE YOU USING HIM!?

Alright, I'm not gonna argue you're retarded points and you're creation scientists are an insult to scientists everywhere. It's pretty much an oxymoron.

Evolution is agreed upon. That's why we learn it in school. They wouldn't teach it if it wasn't solid. They don't teach what you believe because it sounds like something a four year old would invent. Don't try and bend it with your misuse of facts. You can't. And quit using Pierre Grasse. He is not associated with evolution. Do research.

Stephen C Meyers. Wow, he sounds official. And he doesn't agree with evolution. Well, maybe you would like to read this.

A "teach the controversy" strategy was announced by Meyer following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002. The presentation included submission of an
annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as “Darwinian evolution”. In 
response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology   
Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six 
scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.

Look at that last sentence. NO ONE AGREED WITH HIM!

I like how you guys leave out the fact that Ernest Haeckel lived over one hundred years ago. It doesn't matter what he thinks. He lived over a hundred years ago.

First of all, stop attacking Darwin. Darwin's ideas have changed a lot over the years. Darwin is not the supreme teacher of evolution. He didn't have all the answers. Argue with something modern you backwards poons.

Ok, now you attack Gould. Well, everyone knows Gould is well respected and that punctuated equilibrium makes sense. Besides even if it doesn't, it's still evolution. You prove nothing.

Evolution is a theory. You can't disprove that with one paragraph by one crazy old man. Everyone knows it's a theory. That's what we call it. We all know that. We fool no one.

Ok, your next point is really funny because if you do some research they actually have found a way to show how complicated things form. You can look it up yourself but I know you're too stupid so I'll tell you. What happens is it happens in stages and that things that were doing one thing switch to doing another thing. The parts were there they were just doing something else. Look it up yourself. You're wrong.

I'm gonna skip some paragraphs because I've proved enough. No, it's not because I can't disprove them. You guys have already been exposed as frauds. I will say that it's funny when you try to blame things on evolution like the Holocaust. Let's think what types of things religion caused. Slavery, Wars, Segragation...don't don't don't try and say evolution caused things when everyone knows differences in religion do far more damage...cough..cough...The Middle East.

Well, you guys are pathetic. And You will probably delete this. Go Ahead but you can't hide the truth.