Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
...
"The well credentialed scientists listed on this page who support Creation as the Cause of Existence, surly amount to more than "small handful". How many universities have to put their stamp of approval on the "Creationists" to give them credibility? Alumni of Texas Tech University, Princeton University, University of California, Cornell University, Pacific Union College, Florida University, UCLA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, West Point, Queensland Institute of Technology, Duke University, Louisiana State University, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, University of Wales, Rice University, Virginia Tech, University of Oklahoma, University of Minnesota, Pennsylvania State University, University of Rhode Island, University of Michigan, University of Sydney, University of Missouri, St. Louis University, Colorado State University, University of Stellenbosch, Harvard University and more are listed as supporters of Creation. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: This week I was invited to a reception for all the newly appointed professors of the state of Baden Württemberg. About 250 of the 450 could make it. 450 new professors in on state of one country in one year (and these are permanent or tenure track positions only). That should give you an idea of the overall number of scientists. Your 20-odd list is not that impressive.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you know if any of the 250 scientists at your meeting or any of the 200 that did not show are creationists? Perhaps a percentage? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This 20-odd list, is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every Creation believing Scientist. And the 20-odd scientists on this list are members of the "Scientific Community", even if they are a very small part of it. Wouldn't denying them their place in the community be a violation of the NPOV, not all scientists have to agree on every topic. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If we were going to take your lead then I would suggest that we create an article about the very small percentage of scientists that believe in creation over evolution. The apt point by 74.95.24.249 was that there is no Creation-Evolution controversy. —Noah 04:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This article already exists. Level of support for evolution. Note the line "The subject is primarily contentious in the United States." It is no secret that any scientists wanting a grant from a United States government agency had better cow-toe, though few with tenure will admit it to the press.--Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The word is kowtow. It has nothing to do with cows. And of course you have to 'kowtow' to scientific norms to get grants for science. You have to kowtow to laws of nature to get funding for building bridges too. Otherwise they fall down. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The word I used is Cow-toe, like when a cow gets down on one knee, in fact bending its toes. Sounds like kowtow looks like kowtow the act. And the US government Is deciding what good science norms are before the tests results are in. And failing to cow-tow will get you branded. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Grants for science not social agenda. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no such word as "cow toe" (or "cow tow") outside your imagination. There is no social agenda, just science. The results regarding evolution have been in a long long time. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cattle eating grass through barbed wire fence
This is what most biology department heads look like when the "Leader" of what ever parties in power walks in the room. Fat cows just looking for some grass. Bending their unevolved toe knees as far as they can. And stooping as low as a creature can. To Cow-Toe. Words can evolve too.--Kaptinavenger (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent 1.by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment 2.in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc. Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in 1.the fossil record 2.geology 3.genetics 4.molecular biology 5.thermodynamics 6.dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical) 7.probability mathematics Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced 1.no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology 2.no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs 3.no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills. Again thank you fat cows for needing that grass, what a great age for science. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Malapropisms are not linguistic "evolution", just evidence of ignorance. This is just baby-talk from creationist websites. Even most creationst don't recommend the laughable thermodynamics argument these days. All these point have been answered over and over and over. Real science is difficult. Christianity has alsoi been used as a justification for racism, slavery, nazism and other societal/ideological ills. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Your sense of humor is missing but your ability to Cow-Toe astounds. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda 12:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk • contribs)
And Cow-Toe is not a Malapropism, as you can see by the picture, this is common behavior for a cow, a rather fitting term, not "nonsensical" or "out of place" at all as the word Malapropism or mal à propos would imply. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Paul, your user page says your interests include "history of scholarly theories in religion" you should then be able to note the similarities between modern academics and lets say the Anglican Church of the 16th Century. The King wantted to cheat so the ministers(the ancient scientists) are happy to cow-toe and tell him exactly what he wants to hear. Science is being treated the same way, godless ministers of the Big Bang, force feed anti Entropy, and Imaginary time, to the kids so that the "Leaders" can continue to garner power through communism. Just another trip around the merry go round of Secular Religion. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would any self respecting scientist do this you ask? Grass Paul, the calf's are looking skinny and times are getting tough. Survival of the Fittest don't you know. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It took great restraint this morning for me not to create a "Cow-toe vs Kowtow controversy" joke article. Maybe an essay is in order. (Thanks to everyone for keeping a good humor.) —Noah 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
After some research, I believe now more than before, that The phrase Cow-Toe, represents an evolution in linguistics, as it is not a malapropism as it means essentially the same thing as kowtow nor is it a Homonym Heteronym Heterographm, nor a Homophone or Homograph. As you can see by the chart which is missing malapropism this word Cow-Tow is a new type of word. One that means the same, sounds the same, is spelled different, and has a different root. Perhaps a Hetrohomosyngraphanym. Homograph homophone venn diagram --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) - --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)"
Venn diagram showing the relationships between pronunciation, spelling, and meaning of words 2
Gaming the system.
Copied from Guettarda's (talk) page.
Mr.G your use of wikicode and baseless rhetoric on a Talk page in order to silence an argument you do not agree with, is waste of Misplaced Pages resources. You know, people give up their free time to try to contribute to this project. That you chose to waste the resources that people donate to this project the way you do is highly disrespectful of others. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Recognized? We have never talked, My name is Jon Sellers, I reside in OR in the USA and I have only ever used one Misplaced Pages account. WP:GFWP:BITE --Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It appears you have been having the same problem with multiple people, perhaps you have a WP:GAME problem. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Then bam the discussion was ended with a swift delete!
@Kaptinavenger: Exactly what puffery is in this article? We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. You may find Introduction to evolution easier to understand. --NeilN 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kaptinavenger:, please to provide examples of "puffery" in this and other articles whose talkpages you have spammed with this same message. You know, as a show of good faith, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere... that's because your first list are not technical articles, and so they don't use technical language. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are highly technical articles concerning a complex scientific subject. You may appreciate Simple Misplaced Pages, which was created for this very reason. — Jess· Δ♥ 06:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I shall, Puffery can be seen in first word of the second line 1)"All" certainly can have a more neutral alternative. Not so "Bright" as it were. Perhaps, It could also be all, started with "The common consensus is". 2) The line, I did not help write, "There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories in science." puts the whole subject back into theory, the statement, one of the articles truest, and most neutral, made what the fourth paragraph? cf. Truth line 2. The observation I am making is that "understanding the opposite of a thing can be very useful when understanding the reality of a thing." I.E. the theorized opposite of Evolution, Theistic Creation, is not a notion in this article, though exceedingly discussed scholarly & scientifically, even today. I am not suggesting silence. Just offering some tips on NPOV. I could go on listing puffery here, and terrorism, though I have to go do some work on the Big Bang Theory, and it is already late, Happy Valentines Day ;-) I hope the conversation continues. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I hope the conversation doesn't continue as you make little sense. --NeilN 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Kaptin, please forgive me for offering advice, but I recommend that you read the Misplaced Pages articles on these subjects that concern you (evolution, big bang, etc.) and try to learn as much as possible from them. Otherwise, you might benefit from taking some formal courses, maybe at a local college. You might find them interesting. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd also suggest reading WP:NPOV, since you referenced it. "Neutral" does not mean giving all sides equal weight; it means representing significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources from within the scientific community indicating that any of the sentences you've disputed are incorrect? Because we have a great deal of reliable sources indicating they are not. We cannot change the article without sources. — Jess· Δ♥ 09:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ad hominem is unnecessary and rude. And as this article clearly uses multiple definitions of the word, evolution, I propose those definitions and their differences be spelled out clearly. Again I am talking about Plain English here, I am no biologists, though my ability to read is highly evolved cf. Truth, I do agree, things change over time, or evolve, not only in biology but in every science, but this article seems to have, that science, confused with the exo nihilism fish to frog leap of faith. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Repeating for your highly evolved reading ability: We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. You may find Introduction to evolution easier to understand. --NeilN 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I.E. one kind of Evolutionary Biology, studies the forward progression of biology, as it can be observed in reality. Another kind of Evolutionary Biology, hypothesizes the changes we can see and measure, in the variation of species, is sufficient change to account for the variations in all forms of life. Both, very scientific and technical ideas with expansive areas of study, including but not limited to PaleontologyBiology and Physics. I could list a bunch of science journal articles on the debate, but as I am not meaning to change the science of the things, nor the truth of them, simply saying, Misplaced Pages should not give weight to ideas to help prop them up, even if it is hilarious when people believe it cf. Flat Earth. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The alleged "opposite" of biological evolution, which you claim is Creationism, has not been studied scientifically for literal centuries when it became blatantly apparent that there literally is no evidence of God going around magically poofing organisms into existence. Furthermore, I repeat my request for you to provide an example of "puffery," and this time, I wish to ask you use "Plain English," as your stilted dialect is very difficult for other editors understand.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Kapt, I've spelled out how wikipedia operates with respect to neutrality. For more detailed information, you can read WP:WEIGHT. We cannot change the article without referring to sources. Please provide sources, or we can't continue this conversation. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fink: Well. I disagree. You seem to have God and nothing confused, also magically poofing and Manufacturing are different as Creation and Darwinism, puff again Line 2 "All". Particularly on hot subjects, is a loaded introduction word. Man, its dangerous, surely you can understand why, Believed to be, Well thought, Widely understood, common acceptance is that, well taught science shows, would be considered more Gentle words. You do sound rather like "You don't mean round the world, it is impossible!", I don't mean to insult though, you see many respectable people have been, wrong. That's ok, I am wrong often, that's ok. I am not proposing deleting anything from the article, the line number two should get a better handle, or intro, or easier opening, especially as it is in the beginning of the Introduction. Also, the opposite of evolve or evolution is not creation nor manufacturing (creation experienced in reality) as you would suggest, but rather devolve or devolution, the loss of complexity, sometimes towards order, although not always, over a period of time. I have mentioned other suggestions please read above comments. I do rather like the word, stilts. I suggest this article put in a couple well placed stilts so that it can get up out of the WP:PEA. & :@Mann jess:, again, I do not mean to delete anything, or change the content more than ad a smooth intro phrase. The Dictionary, can offer the opposite of evolve, and most can be cited on here right? and again just on line two the word All may be a quote or direct citation in case I suggest we ad who says first, or if it is, as it apperars, WP:PEA, I suggest we use more of the discipline that is shown in the Origin of Life section on this article, and perhaps think to offer at least the definition of devolution to the article. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kaptinavenger: Exactly what puffery is in this article? We strive to be precise here so that necessitates using some scientific terminology. --NeilN 05:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere... that's because your first list are not technical articles, and so they don't use technical language. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are highly technical articles concerning a complex scientific subject. You may appreciate Simple Misplaced Pages, which was created for this very reason. — Jess· Δ♥ 06:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Jess, what I mean to say is that can't the multiple definitions or laymen's terms and technical terms be spelled out clearly by the article? Along side reasonable criticisms, as flawed as they might be, all this bellow a neutral introduction? to Puffery: sentence three "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid", extrapolated, beyond, valid, are technical puffery. Simple one liner, in the introduction, "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." some true statement like that, could allow some clarity in the beginning, and is backed up by the entire section 6. Also no opposite? The lack of comparable opposite or opposing theory(s) is rare in Theory, particularly given the number of problems. Surly not every cosmologist is giving up on, how, whilst abandoning physics? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Kaptin, saying "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." does not compute! Why would we say something that is wrong? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I was going give more indepth advice. But as you are clearly here hoping to push your creationist pov, or something like that I guess. (As it does not seem as pov pushing, but you just poking around.) I will just make one helpful suggestion. Please read Scientific theory as you do not know what theory means when it comes to the context of science. NathanWubs (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Extrapolation does not equate to contradiction. "This user believes in creation not evolution" is fine for a userbox but bringing that notion onto talk pages wastes your time and more importantly, the time of those editors who have to correct you. --NeilN 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid" does not mean "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." Those are totally different sentences. It seems you have not understood the technical language used in this article, which reinforces my suggestion that you check out the simple entry. — Jess· Δ♥ 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down." and "the Big Bang contradicts many observable laws of physics." say the same thing. though one is from Hawkins A Brief History of Time, full of the puffery of the theorist in defense of his life work, the other is in Basic English cf. ad hominem & Manners --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Jeepers, fellas, I'm a landscaper, I build fences, decks, water features and I care for trees'n'schrubs, I love computer programing, I breed Dogs, I have a lovely country farm I get to work on when ever I can. I Really, don't care, what you think of me. It has just been my experience, that the laws of science, don't just break, because some guy says so. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"Gee, wouldn't that be nice!" --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone uninvolved want to close this discussion as Kaptinavenger clearly doesn't know what we mean by reliable sources? --NeilN 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Before I could say anything, as if the dictionary is not a good source.
Then bam the discussion was ended with a swift delete!
Continues shortly later on NeilN's talk page, cf. here.
Sure Buddy.
"Reliable sources: Self-published blogs and other user generated content are not accepted as sources on Misplaced Pages." What about the Dictionary? Try first to look up opposite, then, evolve, then try to find, the opposite of, evolve. It should be sayed, cf. Truth. Practice Science not Silence. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kaptinavenger: You know no one will take your exhortations seriously when you state you believe in creation not evolution. Practice Science, indeed. --NeilN 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I do believe in the some definitions of the word Evolve, I do not believe in fish to frog. A guy once said, "the primary revelation is the universe itself - the creation of the cosmos of which we are all a part." I am trying to be nice, and I get deleted. You argue with recitation, ad hominem, and ultimately ignoring the issue. Dogma, you have trained well, it shows. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kaptinavenger: Those threads were deleted because you could not be bothered to clarify your incoherent ramblings while hypocritically accusing people of ad hominems and hypocritically ignoring what other editors were trying to tell you.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The water is falling over Multnomah falls, as my mother used to say, any excuse will work. Clear, sure, Silence thru Delete. As if the Dictionary, doesn't work. cf. Dogma the only article I think I've linked to in days I already know for sure what It says. I have spent to many years surrounded by Dogmatic, Liars. Silence and Truth are not Synonymous --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not an excuse, you really are incoherent. "My science on this matter rather is pointing towards, the author of Job knowing not only trying to teach the roundness of the earth but also the creators affinity towards the tools of carpentry. I am filled with joy from the research you have inspired." --NeilN 02:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
To paraphrase what was said earlier, no one will take you seriously if you babble incoherently while hypocritically simultaneously ignoring people while accusing them of being liars for not eagerly praising you as some sort of sin-free truth-teller.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Apokryltaros:"Sin" free is Your words, not mine. You sure can silence a discussion fast dude. Not to mention since when has a Dictionary not been a good ref? @NeilN: Good job studying but to what avail? Your looking for trouble. But that would be expected from a dirt throwing professor of Ex nihilo. A dogs gotta eat. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We're not "Junior's First Encyclopedia". For scientific concepts, we're going to look at how scientists define the concept. Practice Science, dude. --NeilN 03:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
That, and there was, no, is no discussion to begin with, Kaptinavenger: only you babbling while ignoring whatever we say. I mean, if there is a discussion, then how come you can not be bothered to clarify your position beyond making incoherently pointless tangents while scolding us for not kissing your ass?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
All of your alleged points. You babble on and on about pointless tangents. You demand that we give undue weight to fringe points of view, while you deliberately ignore people's explanations about how technical articles require technical terminology. And you hypocritically accuse people of using ad hominems against you and trying to censor you, while you simultaneously accuse us of being dogmatic liars and "dirt-throwers." What is your point? That we're all evil morons because we aren't busy kissing your ass?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Sir's if I may, you are implying insult where there is none. I am not mad at you. Though you seem mad. I am the new guy and answering and asking lots of questions, I am not meaning to lie or WP:GAME, just talk about a topic, with text code, on said topics "talk page".
You two, have tag teamed me, with the fastest delete I have seen yet. Forgive me if it seems, Hmmm... I dunno cf. Dogmatic --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If you would go back and see.
I started by asking for some Basic English and You are demanding that I explain what I mean. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are not insulting us, then why do you continue to accuse people of using ad hominems against you, or call us things like "dogmatic liars" and "dirt-throwers" or accuse us of trying to silence you? If you are here to discuss, then why do you refuse to listen to anyone when they explain to you how technical articles require appropriate terminology, or explain to you how one can not make profound changes to articles, such as giving undue weight to unscientific nonsense in science articles, without appropriate, reliably truthful sources? And yes, you are asking for undue weight whenever you demand that we post your nonsense about the "opposite of evolution"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And yes, we're demanding that you explain what you mean because you are incoherent, and you insist on refusing to get to the point, while hypocritically insisting we use "Basic English," while also calling us "dogmatic liars" and "dirt-throwers"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok one more time, just for you, In good faith, I really don't give a shit guys. But here..
I Suggest changing the introduction to Line Two of the Evolution Article, from; "All", if it is a direct quote, then, To, saying who says. If Not a Quote, Then, adding, A half a line of "softener".
I don't mean to deny, nor imply, nor infer but rather to be clear.
Also I suggest Continuing to examine or perform continued science in the structure of the article itself, to more fairly reflect other well research topics.
If you don't understand a well researched topic try Flat Earth. ok. There is lots of tools there. Please be creative. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
See WP:ASSERT. "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Misplaced Pages's own voice without in-text attribution." Comparing an article on an archaic belief to Evolution is of little use. Practice Science, dude. --NeilN 04:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Flat earth e.g. information that was accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute. Also the opposite of a thing can be important to understanding the truth of a thing.
It doesn't matter, you guys deleted it already, you win, go team! Because a team of DogmaticProfessors know how to WP:GAME, a classic WP:BITE simple deniers. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
With all do respect you sound like Uncle Paul sir. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If you claim that you don't give a shit, and that you're not intending to insult anyone, then why do you insist on continuing to call us dogmatic liars and cheaters because we aren't bending over to kiss your ass? Isn't that hypocritical of you?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
