Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates

As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since http://www.conservapedia.com/World_War_II" title="World War II - World War II have been atheists. ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-102" title=" - [106] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-103" title=" - [107]} Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution" title="Theory of evolution - evolution controversy. ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-104" title=" - [108] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-WWD" title=" - [109]} In August of 1979, http://www.conservapedia.com/Henry_Morris" title="Henry Morris - Dr. Henry Morris reported in an http://www.conservapedia.com/Institute_for_Creation_Research" title="Institute for Creation Research - Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-WWD" title=" - [109]} Morris also said regarding the creation scientist http://www.conservapedia.com/Duane_Gish" title="Duane Gish - Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-WWD" title=" - [109]} Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists. ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist#_note-105" title=" - [110]}

Origins

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-1" title=" - [3] http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-2" title=" - [4]} , creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...
However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-3" title=" - [5]}

According to the http://www.conservapedia.com/Origins_theory" title="Origins theory - origins theory model used by young earth http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation_science" title="Creation science - creation scientists , modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah%27s_Ark" title="Noah's Ark - Noah's Ark prior to the http://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood" title="Great Flood - Great Flood . It has not yet been determined by http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology" title="Baraminology - baraminologists whether kangaroos form a http://www.conservapedia.com/Holobaramin" title="Holobaramin - holobaramin with the http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wallaby&action=edit" class="new" title="Wallaby - wallaby , http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tree-kangaroo&action=edit" class="new" title="Tree-kangaroo - tree-kangaroo , http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wallaroo&action=edit" class="new" title="Wallaroo - wallaroo , http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pademelon&action=edit" class="new" title="Pademelon - pademelon and http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quokka&action=edit" class="new" title="Quokka - quokka , or if all these species are in fact http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology" title="Baraminology - apobaraminic or http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology" title="Baraminology - polybaraminic .

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-cab17" title=" - [6]} with lower sea levels during the post-flood http://www.conservapedia.com/Ice_age" title="Ice age - ice age , or before the supercontinent of http://www.conservapedia.com/Pangea" title="Pangea - Pangea broke apart ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-4" title=" - [7]} The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some http://www.conservapedia.com/Australian_Aborigines" title="Australian Aborigines - Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the " http://www.conservapedia.com/Dreamtime" title="Dreamtime - Dreamtime " ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-5" title=" - [8]} and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-6" title=" - [9]}

A majority of biologists regard http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution" title="Theory of evolution - evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo, but this is to be expected, given their worldviews. For example, approximately 45% of http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States" title="United States - American scientists do not believe there is a God, ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-7" title=" - [10]} and 93% of the scientists who were members of the http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences" title="United States National Academy of Sciences - United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God. ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-8" title=" - [11]} Futhermore, since http://www.conservapedia.com/World_War_II" title="World War II - World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism" title="Methodological naturalism - methodological naturalism have been http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism" title="Atheism - atheists . ^{http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-9" title=" - [12] http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#_note-10" title=" - [13]}

/facepalm.jpg x5



-------------

Da Hui wrote: Benjichang wrote: Jack Carver wrote: omg making fun of exaggerated conservative values is sooo cool teach me how? So I take it you agree with the crap in Conservapedia? Have you ever looked at it? Some of the stuff is completely off-the-wall ridiculous (and probably worth making fun of). I think the comment was more directed at the blatantly anti Conservative bias exemplified by a majority of this forum, rather than just the off the wall nonsense posted on that site.

It's not about making fun or having a bias against conservatives. I would hope that most conservatives would disagree with the crap this website slings. It's about making fun of the ridiculous.

Jack Carver wrote: Well maybe the off-the-wall stuff is more entertaining than the examples posted above.

I'd qualify the examples posted as pretty off-the-wall...

Although not as funny as their entry on Denmark, for instance, and other masterpieces.