Evolutionionist: How do you explain Conservapedia's, the real encyclopedia's, skepticism toward evolution?

Question

See? http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Doesn't that prove evolution is wrong?

Answer 1

That is fantastic. I should rewrite the proxy server at work on april's fools to route all wikipedia requests through there.

Answer 2

However, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error or currently has little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practioners up until the late 1800s. [40] Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[41] Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.[42]

How the hell is that an Argument against Evolution?

Answer 3

The premise is that, if all the sequence of fossils cannot be found, the theory of evolution is null and void. If there are gaps, God must have intervened.
It is illogical to demand complete documentation of a sequential phenomenon which occurred in the range of millions of years.
Such overwhelming and complete documentation is not required even in murder cases.
Creationists love the gaps. However, the gaps are temporary.
Richard Dawkins states that science needs to seek areas of ignorance on a subject in order to target its research and quest for the truth.
Creationists seek areas of ignorance in order to claim victory, by default.
This is a very important distinction. There has to be intellectual honesty here.
Let's not declare a theory wrong just because it has not gathered all the evidence yet.
On the other hand, have you imagined what would happen to Creationism if we also demanded
such rigorous evidence?
Not a chance!
The evidence for evolution is building up whereas the evidence for creationism is buried in the past.

Answer 4

Wow I can't believe some fundie went to so much trouble. Sad really to think what he/she could have done with that time.

I always chuckle when people try to discredit the evaluational theory. No one with any scientific credit to their name is calling evolution fact. They are calling it a THEORY. They have only scratched the surface of trying to piece it together.

There are millions of fossils to examine all over the world. It is like trying to put together a 10000 piece puzzle together in the dark while a delusional bible thumper stands beside you tapping his foot and repeats "Can't do it can you?" "Told you that puzzle couldn't be put together."

Answer 5

Conservapedia v.s Thousands of credible pieces of evidence for evolution. Who would win?

Answer 6

Because it's Conservapedia, not, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. That's like asking why the PETA site doesn't give the health benefits of meat. Please.

Answer 7

1

Answer 8

they brag about getting more hits then rush limbaugh

i thought the introduction was good but the rest of it sh#t

thanks for bringing that to my attention think our side needs a response

Answer 9

LOL!!! OMG! Did a whackjob fundamentalist write that or what?!

Conservapedia is NOT reliable nor is it informative..

LOL "macroevolution", what a load of Sh!t.

Answer 10

Yay for sarcasm!