See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Ruylopez

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Revision as of 22:41, 27 June 2009 by Ruylopez (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Ruylopez/archive 1

Nice job on the fast archive before I could respond. I was going to give you something but seeing as you have shoved it all the discussions down you intellectual bunny hole, I can't be bothered. π 02:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you said respecting PJR wishes in the edit summary. I suppose you were going to just blank the lot you coward. π 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
PI, I didn't see us coming to any type of agreement at least in the short term and it appeared to me as if PJR felt the commentary about CP was being contentious. Therefore, I archived the material. If you can't live with this state of affairs, that is regrettable but that is the way it is going to be. Ruylopez 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Contents

Your Thoughts...

I am curious Ken, do you think that Conservapedia is viable? You can see that TK just drives EVERYONE away. Is it not obvious that the project is doomed? Even editors, conservative editors, get infinite blocks for the smallest of transgressions. Thoughts? Ace McWicked 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ace, see this, please. This is aSK, not CP or RW. While some comparison is inevitable, aSK is not here merely to reflect on CP. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Granted Bradley however there was discussion of this same nature on Kotomi's (Jessica) talkpage without the same warning. I did not berate Ken nor belittle him (taking into account your previous warning to remain civil). I was merely curious as to the viability of a project that this member is also a part of, on the concerned members own talkpage. Ace McWicked 07:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess the comment was made here because Ruylopez's talk page has had much more CP centred discussion. (This page is the "tall-poppy" in that respect). I understand the difficulty in raising any of this at CP (!), but perhaps an email would be appropriate. Butting back out, now.BradleyF (LowKey) 09:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I said in that link that Bradley put that I don't want to stop all discussion about Conservapedia, but the discussion on this page was excessive and unfriendly. Ace McWicked, I would not have a problem with your question if it was in isolation and didn't lead to a huge and likely bitter discussion about Conservapedia as the discussion on JessicaT's page didn't. But having just put a stop to excessive discussion on this page, your timing at least was most unfortunate. As for not putting a warning on JessicaT's page, for all you knew, I hadn't even seen that discussion. However, I had seen it, and had no problem with it because it was civil and not getting out of hand. Also, I have previously posted a similar warning here. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AceMcWicked, while it is possible that the discussion of CP at this page could turn civil, my guess is that the past trend would continue which PJR is opposed to. Since I believe PJR wants to focus on building his wiki rather that being a referee about CP (the previous discussion was certainly not a "tea and crumpets type conversation"! ), I believe it is best to choose to decline to answer your question. In addition, I do have some other important priorities that I wish to attend to. Ruylopez 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I did wish to remain civil. I have never had problems or run-ins with Ken so there was no reason for me to be rude. I was merely curious in finding out what he thought. You'll notice I was never involved in the discussion on Kotomi's page myself. Never mind then. Ace McWicked 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have never had any problems with Ken LOL. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki has been expecting Conservapedia to fold since last Autumn and somehow it doesn't. Even if few new people edit Conservapedia can still carry on with the 30,000 odd articles it already has. Proxima Centauri 07:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

check out this article on the evolutionary position

Check out this article on the evolutionary position: Theory of evolution Ruylopez 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The caption under the obligatory Hitler picture looks quite familiar. I can only assume that Operation Flying Hagrid is skewering evil-ution on the Intarwebs. Ole indeed. CorryTalk 04:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ken, can you please stop shameless promotion of Windmill Ministries? It would be much appreciated. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 00:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ken, you should really warn people that this "energetic" article automatically belches Hitler from the speakers upon loading. It probably alienates other people at the library. CorryTalk 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ken, I got your "position" on evolution right here ;&*) ħuman Number 19 05:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The peaceful windmill scene with the lambs on the main page of Conservapedia lures some evolutionists into a false sense of feeling of serenity before they click on the "energetic" article on the evolutionary paradigm. :) I do try to be courteous to people who are afraid of sharks, however, so I restored the serene windmill scene. Ruylopez 22:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GENTLEMAN

Operation Saturated Wallaby has been initiated. Expect to see a sudden spike of activity on Conservapedia over the next 1000 years! --Gulik 00:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Gulik is a postmillennial dispensationalist. Such heresy, Mr Gulik. Tut tut tut. Pink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 06:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as a SubGenius, I believe as a matter of doctrine that The Rapture occurred back in 1996, but the only person in America who made the cut was one 60-year-old beet farmer in Iowa, and nobody even noticed he was missing for three months. --Gulik 08:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
My uncle became an atheist, but he quit. He found out they have no holidays nor do they have a 1,000 year reign. Ruylopez 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He found out they have no holidays... What about April 1st? :-) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Foolish mortal, what of Festivus? The EmperorRise, my apprentice 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)EDIT In case Seinfeld reruns do not exist in Australia, Festivus was a holiday invented by one of the characters in which you place up a aluminum pole, much like a Christmas tree, and then "air your grievances" at family members who have disappointed you over the past year. The character creating it exclaims "Christmas is for the Christians, Hannukah is for the Jews, and Festivus for the rest of us. It's somewhat of an inside joke among Seinfeld watches. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we are inflicted with Seinfeld reruns, but I could never see much sense with the show, so have rarely watched it. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you (slaps self)

But seriously, I hope that you successfully overcome whatever it is that ails you. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 16:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I do have a minor malady at the present time, I am completely cured of the more serious malady I suffered in the past. I am keeping the grim reaper at bay for now, but eventually he may catch up with me.  :) Thanks for your concern. Ruylopez 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to see a psychiatrist. Have you done that lately? Teh Terrible Asp 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Terrible Asp, I think your bite is rather like this cobra's bite and that it is all hiss but no real bite. Perhaps you can get your fangs restored? Since Conservapedia is down, I refer you to the following Google result: Liberal tricks - Conservapedia The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a conservative by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting liberal trick #17 above. ... www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_tricks [1] :) What are you going to try next Liberal Trick #16?  :) Ruylopez 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds remarkably similar to people smearing liberalism by claiming that he or she has a mental illness too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, I believe the concern mentioned isn't so much a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue but rather genuine concern for an individual who seems to be obsessing about particular topics and making minor changes to a document in what appears to be a cry for attention. --Shagie 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm not going to indulge your delusion that there's such a thing as a liberal trick. Second, I'm not about having a deadly bite, sharp fangs, or a scary hiss. Teh Terrible Asp is a stupid biblical reference that was apparently lost on you. My point, though oblique, was that you've spent so much time tweaking and rearranging your Dawkins, atheism, and RightTemplate edits for over 5 hours that I'm seriously concerned you're having a manic episode. It's not meant to offend. I speak plainly when that's required, so my post above was, while perhaps impolitic, an expression of my concern for you. Take it however you wish. It's a really nice weekend where I am. I'm enjoying a margarita made with fresh lime juice and nice tequila. Maybe there's something that calms you too? You look like you need a rest. Teh Terrible Asp 00:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Terrible Asp, I was a little sleepy when making my edits and the amount of continuous time I made on the edits I could not say. On the other hand, I can say that I do recognize the benefits of "revising/tweaking". Maybe if someone actually read the material you wrote at a rather liberal wiki, you could see some value in this as well. Lastly, in the future, perhaps I will make less edits when somewhat sleepy, but then again maybe I am merely throwing you an empty bone of hope in this matter.  :) Ruylopez 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I just thought you looked worn out. And keep the bone of hope to yourself. Teh Terrible Asp 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Shagie, like I have said before, RWians spend far more time thinking about my H article than I do. I rarely think of that subject and when I do it is invariably caused by the H matter being reported in the news. Now I did have multiple purposes behind my H article which I choose not to disclose for the sake of brevity, but one of them I will definitely say was to reach people who want to escape the H lifestyle. Now as far as the CP atheism and evolution articles, I would say that a good Christian apologetics team should focuses on both defense and offense. I wrote my articles because I felt my team could use some assistance when it came to tackling the A and E teams ideology on the internet. I suppose I could have made some tackles as far as the radical feminism team's ideology, but I rather prefer to communicate with Christian sweethearts than tackle members of the radical feminism team's ideology. :) By the way, if you are a Mr. Shagie, here is an oldie but a goodie for your listening pleasure that you can use to melt a sweetheart's heart should you wish to serenade her. I make no promises as to what might occur should you serenade a radical feminist with the Bing Crosby song I recommended rather than with this song. Ruylopez 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Asp, if I should get tired in the future, I think I would rather prefer to think about the time when I will suggest my team mobilize through various venues as that would be more energizing and more dramatic to boot. On the other hand, I do rather like this energizing and peaceful song which is on my CP user page. Ruylopez 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not going to have to put a stop to this discussion as I have before on this page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if we could even pretend to have a conversation like this on CP without all of us getting blocked and rangeblocked. This is healthy. Let it go. Teh Terrible Asp 02:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do rather like this energizing and peaceful song which is on my CP user pageTramaine Hawkins"FALL DOWN"ITALO Disco Remix 1986 Uh oh... The EmperorRise, my apprentice 03:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PJR, we just had an edit conflict. I was just about to post the following: I have reconsidered my recent posts and I think I should restrain myself as far as CP commentary in order to respect PJRs wishes. In addition, it is much more energizing to be engaged in various activities than to merely give cameo appearances here where I give sneak previews and Monday night commentary. :) Ruylopez 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken, I guess what all of us wish would be if you learned how to use "preview" instead of editing twelfteen times, especially on places like the main page templates. PS, this has nothing to do with aSoK. ħuman Number 19 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

SECONDED --Gulik 04:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One final comment before I sign off for the night. Ken, I noticed that amongst all of the music you have on your userpage, you neglected to include this one. I feel that this would go excellent, so when tirading GENTLEMEN MY GOOGLE RANKINGS IS OVER 9000 you would have something nice with Hitler in it to get you in the mood. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You know that one clip from some recent movie of Hitler ranting in German which has been joke-subtitled to every topic on Earth? Could someone more movie-savvy than I am do Ken a big favor, and makes Hitler rant about Creationists and how they're spoiling his Perfect Darwinist State? He'd probably die of happiness.
PS: Here's a nice little video that pretty well sums up how I feel about Creationism. --Gulik 04:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Theemperor, I really do not believe that there will be anymore Gentlemen messages. They may have served a purpose at one point, but I do not believe this is the case from this point on. Secondly, I usually am a good guesser, but I guessed wrong as far as the song you picked. I am not a big Wagner fan, but I thought you might have picked this song. Lastly, God willing, I think this song is a good choice to reflect the future of evolutionism on the internet. Ruylopez 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Two things

  1. NO MORE GENTLEMEN!?!?!?!!!?? WHAT MADNESS IS THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  2. Actually, I can play the Chopin Prelide in C minor on my piano. I'll upload a file somewhere.

The EmperorRise, my apprentice 03:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Troll much, Theemporer? Sterile 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
One: It's Theemperor. Two: Trolling Kendoll != Trolling Phil/Bradley et al. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I"m sure Ken can give up Gentlemenning any time he wants to. --Gulik 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken - First, I don't think your OCD or whatever it is will let you stop the Gentlemen messages. I just don't. Prove me wrong. Second, to whom were those messages actually directed? You realize you couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper sack, right? The original content in your quote mined "Articles" couldn't be more than 5% of the text, and it's all "in regards to" and whatnot. You're obviously not a scientist or even a very critical reader. You weren't convincing anyone. You were only getting laughed at. Jus' sayin'. Teh Terrible Asp 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure your OCD or whatever it is arm chair diagnosis is right or could it be something else? Ruylopez 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As usual, I don't get it. Just come up with a substantive response all on your own instead of quote mining or making your oblique points through interpretive Youtube linking, K? Teh Terrible Asp 17:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Asp, you might not like that I adapt to changing conditions and change tactics, but that has what has occurred. I wouldn't look for anymore gentlemen messages at CP. Ruylopez 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why no more? I liked them. Teh Terrible Asp 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Asp, I am sorry, but I choose to remain as inscrutable as I have always been. It is part of my mystique. :) Ruylopez 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, reading this makes me think of Ingatius J. Reilly. Anyone else get that impression? --Gulik 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page From CP

Hey Ken, could you copy and paste the text from this deleted page and put it here? I assume you have access to the former content of deleted pages on CP. Thank you much. FernoKlumpDrugged-up Communist! 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask TK or Andy to do it for you.  :) Seriously, I have had CPers ask me to restore deletions like the deletions to my user talk page at CP for the sake of history. I really don't see historians tracking the minutiae that goes on at wikis. I certainly am not interested in it. Please refrain from asking me request like this in the future. Ruylopez 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
He was asking for the sake of aSK, not CP, because he has proposed that we might use something like that here. But it doesn't matter now, as TimS himself has a copy. As for "the sake of history", well, the software maintains a history of articles for a reason. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't Phil do that? According to CP's User Rights Log, he still can still use: Check users, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, Oversighters, Siteadmin, Upload, edit, Block and SkipCaptcha. BTW Phil, what are all the nsTeam rights(nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW)? What do they do? The EmperorRise, my apprentice 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you'd need "Administrator" to undelete a page. Not that you actually need to go that far -- it's possible to just view the page if you're in the Admin group. (Assuming CP follows the same rules as RW) Pink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you need "Administrator" to view or restore deleted pages. The Team ones were for competitions they had to improve the site, and special restricted namespace was created for each team to discuss strategy, track progress, etc., and these rights gave us access to these namespaces. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of the confusion is likely based on the fact that you still got three "big" rights that are usually associated with admin rights (and are mostly awarded after one becomes admin): Oversight (completely hide revisions), Siteadmin (which sounds a lot like sysop/admin, but "only" allows you to lock the database) and CheckUser (everybody's favorite "I know where you live!" tool). --Sid 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bada bing, bada boom! Oh, how sweet it is!

Right. That's going to last. How does your fixation with homosexuals rank on bing? Teh Terrible Asp 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Asp, I am guessing you think about that subject far more than I. When you have actual proof for your allegation, please get back to me. In the meantime, I will remain content in the knowledge that I rarely think about the subject and when I do it is invariably because I see some news report. Ruylopez 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Homosexuality ranks number 3. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No Ken, you're not obsessed at all with Homosex. Right? The EmperorRise, my apprentice 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that really shows that you don't ever think about same sex stuff, Ken. Nice one Emp. User 11speak to me 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Emperor, perhaps you should consider that there may be a lack of creative thinking on your part and confirmation bias. As far as the edits you list in my most recent edits, perhaps you should consider alternative explanations for my behavior. Might the edits from 1:30am to to 1:51am be key to explaining my behavior? Moving the material to a more contextually relevant area of the article improved the article. However, could it have possibly achieved other things as well? Perhaps, you should contemplate this matter. I would love to tell you more. However, if you recall, I do like to use speed, surprise, flexibility, and a minimum of force when achieving my objectives. :) If I told you why I do things that might spoil the surprise! As I told Mr. Asp, I do like to remain inscrutible. Feel free to follow your wild goose chases though as far as trying to explain various actions of mine. I do, however, sometimes like to tell certain people when they are wrong about my actions and sometimes provide clues of various difficulty to interpret.  :) Ruylopez 07:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Emporer, by the way have you seen CPs article on Dr. Biron Brown ? Ruylopez 08:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You created an article about someone for the sole purpose of quoting a "we should slow down and think about this" article they wrote sixteen years ago, just because it intersected with the two things you think that you have the absolute truth on (evolution and homosexuality). If you read and research that article, you'll discover that his caution is written from experience - the supposed genetic link to maniac depression mentioned near the end was announced by a group he was a major part (if not head) of, and not a decade later they ended up retracting it due to other studies not bearing that conclusion out. He made a mistake, and he told others to be careful not to make a mistake. This is not an authoritative judgment, it's a well-advised warning to be thorough.
But, honestly, I doubt that means anything to you. If anything, I suspect you will use what I just told you to try to further prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder (which, of course, is quite at odds with when you try to prove it as a conscious, immoral choice). Pascal 08:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Pascal, where have I ever claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder? Ruylopez 16:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ken, why not report on your Homosexuality and Genetics page the findings of the investigation of Dean Hamer? How about the additional research performed by other labs that supported his findings? Do you realize that the quote you have from Miron Baron demonstrates his lack of knowledge of evolution and genetics? With Hamer's findings of the gene being located on the X chromosome and this one gene only linked to male homosexuality shows that it can pass through generations through heterozygous females. He is more or less saying that because homosexuals will not reproduce they should have died out. His statement shows his lack of knowledge about the genetic findings. It also shows a lack of research on your part by including it on so many pages. Sometimes it is better to actually research than to quote mine.--Timsh 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

Thought I'd help you every time I saw something in one your CP writings that needed to be cited.

1.From your essay "Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science": "Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher" - cite needed for his renown. You may additionally wish to indicate that Ken Ham's article, which you linked to twice, predates Dr. Baron's article by ten years. Pascal 06:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How about that Baron is a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, not of genetics. Wait a minute, is this and example of someone talking about a subject that they have limited understanding of... perhaps I should start making statements about astrophysics. I mean a PhD is a PhD right? It really does not matter what field it is in. But we all know that an MD is more qualified to speak on a topic than someone with a PhD in that topic.--Timsh 13:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Pascal, re: Baron - look at the material quoted from footnote 3 located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Miron_Baron Ruylopez 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Timsh, re: Baron - see the psychobiology qualification here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Miron_Baron
To both Pascal and Timsh, Please actually read the material at CP before throwing out baseless charges. Ruylopez 23:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken, your link did nothing to change the fact that Baron has no formal qualifications of genetics, if I am wrong please provide these qualifications. He is an MD, who specializes in psychiatry, not a PhD who has spent his life researching the topic. Do you even know the difference between a MD and a PhD? Consider about 4 more years of specialized research experience. Now on to the point. Baron received his MD almost 35 years ago. With that being said do you believe he would have more experience and know how than a person who has been on the front line of genetics and molecular biology, and is trained in those fields formaly, if so then I have a car to sell to you. This is the reason why your arguments fail, because you pull up quotes from people who are underqualified to comment least over turn the work of professionals in these areas of research. Perhaps it might be best if you take the time out to read at what the science is really saying instead of listening to those who are not qualified to comment on the topics. Oh, and I will be happy to answer questions you might have in regards to cellular, molecular, biology and genetics. I would not want to leave you in the dark.

Perhaps you can answer a question for me, why do you believe the bible is true? I am not asking in general but your personal belief. I mean, you are willing to throw stones at a science that you seem to have a limited understanding of due to some understanding you have from the bible. I want to know what validates the bible to you.--Timsh 19:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Timsh, please try to use some common sense. If you can show me how homosexuals engaging in homosexuality pass on their genes your input would be most welcome. Secondly, BMJ is not exactly Mad Comics and I am assuming they had peer review. Thirdly, the material does state that "Dr. Baron is renowned for his research on the clinical phenomenology, psychobiology and genetics of affective (mood) disorders. His research aims to uncover the underlying genetic mechanisms and risk factors and their implications for diagnosis, etiology, prevention and treatment. He has published over 150 articles and book chapters and has lectured widely in national and international scientific forums. His research work has been supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health. He currently serves on the editorial board of the journals Molecular Psychiatry and Psychiatric Genetics. In recognition of his academic and scientific achievements, Dr. Baron is the recipient of several awards and honors including the Milton Rosenbaum Research Award from Albert Einstein College of Medicine; the Mead Johnson Laboratories Excellence of Research Award; the Roche Laboratories Award in Neuroscience; the A.E. Bennett Neuropsychiatric Research Foundation Award from the Society of Biological Psychiatry; the National Service Research Award, Research Scientist Development Award, and Research Scientist Award, all from the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Psychiatric Research Award from the Americal Mental Health Fund."[2] When you decide to get serious, I will think of replying to you further. Ruylopez 00:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
"If you can show me how homosexuals engaging in homosexuality pass on their genes your input would be most welcome." Your understanding of genetics and inheritance is woefully sad. If, say, the "h" gene simply exists as one recessive gene, carriers ("Hh") will be heterosexual and pass it along to their progeny. Progeny that are "hh" will be homosexual, and engage in sexual acts that will in all likelihood not result in offspring. All this "h" gene would have to do to survive perpetually is confer some traits that enhance the survival of its carriers (much like sickle-cell anemia, carriers are immune to malaria). In reality, it is likely that "h" is more complex than one gene - and human sexuality is far more varied than dreamt of in your philosophy. Many people desire, and act upon, many different sexual desires and proclivities, meaning "carriers" of several genes disposing them towards homosexual desires and acts may also be inclined towards heterosexual (baby-making) desires and acts. Hence, it is easy to see how a genetic basis for homosexuality could be perpetuated via sexual reproduction.
Now for amusement, let us consider what propels people towards masturbation, which also obviously does not result in genetic perpetuation. All the same arguments apply. Be seeing you,
Best regards, ħuman Number 19 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What is ironic is that the trace is simpler than what Human explained. The gene is located on the x chromosome, the gene is only associated with male homosexuality. Ken, Baron's publication in BMJ is a letter not a research article. Ken, do you know there is a difference? Nice cut and paste from Baron's website at columbia, how about a list of his work with homosexuality and genetics? How about his link to his publications on his own website comes up for publications for Baron M, Baron MS, Baron MH. Ken, find some actual proof instead of opinion.--Timsh 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I see you have not lost your penchant for bunk science. I will let you continue in your folly and you might even wish to add to it and attempt to find genes for child molesting, bestiality, and other sexual depravity. Ruylopez 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Tell me, do you understand the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia/zoophilia? Pascal 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you grouped the last two to distinguish them from the first. That tends to suggest that you consider the last two similar in some way but different to the first. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
What? Surely you understand the difference between homosexuality and the two other philias mentioned, PJR? Pascal 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
All three are different to each other. What specific similarities/differences do you have in mind? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm mainly referring to the fact that homosexuality is, in the large majority of situations, an act between consenting sexual partners. Pedophilia and zoophilia are condemned near-universally with or without religion because children and animals cannot consent. Such actions are abusive, manipulative and destructive by nature, unlike homosexuality. To compare homosexuality to the latter two is a disgusting distortion of the reality of emotional and sexual relationships, and there's honestly no way to take anyone who is willing to make that comparison seriously. It's why people who say that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope to things like human-animal marriage are rightfully treated like idiots. Pascal 04:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah! So that's the distinction you are making! Okay, fair comment, but not black-and-white. Children can consent; it's just that we consider them to not have the wisdom to make that decision properly. But there is disagreement over what age they can properly decide, and paedophiles are trying to get that limit lowered. They argue that children are able to consent for all sorts of other things, so why not for this also. In other words, that distinction is, to a fair extent, merely one of current community consensus, not an inherent one. As for animals, lack of ability to consent is not the only reason why it is rejected, and why should consent be required of animals anyway? They are not our equals. So really, your distinction/grouping in both cases is merely current consensus, not inherent. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Am I reading that right? Why should consent of animals be required anyway? BECAUSE WITHOUT CONSENT IT'S RAPE. It doesn't matter if you don't think they're equal. That's....not hard to understand, is it?Pascal 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you ask every animal whether they consent to be eaten? I think most people are opposed to zoophilia because they find it repulsive and unnatural, not because animals can't give their consent, even if you claim otherwise. --OscarJ 07:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And what's wrong with rape? (Of course I'm not suggesting for one moment that rape is okay. But until we know/agree on what's wrong with it, we can't determine whether it's an issue with animals.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Rape is a form of abuse, that's what's wrong with it. And I'd be careful saying such things ("And what's wrong with rape?") on Ken's talk page given his penchant for quote mining. JasonD 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What makes it a form of abuse? (And I don't for one moment think that Ruylopez is going to take my comments out of context; it's generally the atheists etc. who do that.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The "destructive by nature" is argued against in all three cases by the various proponents/practitioners, despite there being evidence supporting all 3 of being destructive by nature. There is also a much higher incidence of overlap between homo- and pedo- than between hetero- with either, so the distinction is not as clear cut as is often asserted. BradleyF (LowKey) 07:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? What's the evidence that homosexuality is destructive in nature in a way comparable to pedophilia (or zoophilia)? And I'd like to know what point you're trying to make with your claim of higher incidence of overlap. Pascal 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken, you did not address any of what I wrote. Baron's BMJ paper was a letter, they are not required to undergo any peer review and most are nothing more than opinion. So how exactly does this letter bunk what the investigation into Dean Hamer's work into Xq28 found? How about the incorrect statement of the basic genetics? I do not know if Baron was aware at that time that the gene was on the x chromosome or that the trait was only seen in males, but his statement would also apply to male patterned baldness, which is caused by a gene on the x chromosome as well. Just to note, many homosexual men did and do have sexual relations with women, so using the concept that the trait would have died out due to no offspring is very misleading. For example I have a friend whose father is gay (out and living with his partner) but sired 3 girls. This is a prime example of why Baron's comment holds no water. Now, perhaps you could provide some actual research from Baron to support his claim? Oh and just an FYI, I do not believe that genetics is the sole cause However I do believe it has a very strong influence. With that being said how about those reformed gays that the churches in the US say they converted? Last time I checked many reverted back to their lifestyle of homosexuality.--Timsh 13:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pascal, have you seen this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8006418?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum If you are not familiar with the term "chicken" as used in the aforementioned link you can read what the term means here: http://americansfortruth.com/news/andrew-sullivan-says-its-our-fault-we-made-foley-do-it.html Ruylopez 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No, and I'm not interested until you clearly state what relevance it has to this debate. Pascal 07:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Pascal, cat got your tongue regarding http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8006418?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum ? Not surprising. Here is some addition material that will clam you up even more: http://www.conservapedia.com/Teen_Homosexuality Ruylopez 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What part of "I'm not interested until you clearly state what relevance it has to this debate" don't you understand? Let me break it down for you:

"I'm not interested" = my level of interest in the link you posted is zero, and I am not going to read it
"until you clearly state what relevance it has to this debate" = however, if you take time out of your busy schedule of preaching to the choir and tell me why the link you gave has any bearing on what I have posted so far

This is not difficult. That said, I just read the article you linked, and here are a few more things that need citations:
"Teenage homosexuality is almost an unknown phenomenon"
"although invariably portrayed as fully-fledged homosexuality by advocates of the homosexual agenda"
"regardless of the wishes or needs of the underaged youth affected"
"For example, it is important the teenagers have knowledge about the causes of homosexuality."
"public health care fiasco"
"certainly had an effect on the teenage population in the United State"

Regarding the quoted Journal of Adolescent Health paper summary, I see that you avoided quoting several things, such as:

"In 2003, young women accounted for 50% of HIV cases reported among 13-19 year olds, and 37% of cases among 20-24 year-olds in the 33 states whose HIV reporting is including in CDC surveillance."

This is interesting, insofar as it would suggest the lack of a damning link between teenage homosexuality and AIDS. Of course, if females make up half of the teenage cases, that means males make up the other half, which would make quite an awful amount of homosexual male teens for something that is "almost an unknown phenomenon", given that "most infections are acquired by having sex with HIV-infected men".


I would also suggest you talk to Mr. Schlafly about how the views of the Society could be further included on Conservapedia with such quotes as these:

"The Society endorses community based HIV/AIDS prevention and education that recognizes the importance of abstinence but that is comprehensive and sensitive to the needs of all adolescents, including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning."

-

"The Society continues to endorse community-based prevention and education activities. Many of these activities will take place in schools and youth-serving organizations. All such activities should be scientifically grounded and evidence-based and focus on the development of both resilience and decision-making and be inclusive of ethnically and behaviorally dieverse youth of all types of sexual orientation or behaviors. Absinence and delay of sexual initiation should be an important component of all preventive education approaches, especially for young adolescents and for adolescents of all ages who are already infected. The Society does not endorse this as an exclusive approach, however. Concrete education and training about the use of barrier methods and safer sex negotiation skills for all modes of sexual contact must remain an essential component of prevention education for youth. Access to confidential family planning services, STD diagnosis and treatment, and substance use treatment must be linked to all HIV prevention efforts among youth. Particular attention should be focused on providing services targeting gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, as well as youth who are homeless, runaway, or made vulnerable by learning, emotional or family challenges. If not included in the above groups, youth in state protective custody or the justice system all need focused attention for preventive efforts. Concentrated and continuing efforts must be made to reach these often difficult to access at-risk youth and to continue efforts to develop, adapt and implement effective interventions."


I also note you quote the abstract of an American Psychologist article. I'm curious, have you read the full article? Or perhaps found any documentation of the actual research that went into that article?

Then there's the article heading "Teenager Homosexuality and Older Homosexuals Preying on Vulnerable Youth". Unfortunately, the two quotes have a small problem in them - specifically the phrases "and straight girls" and "as well as non-lesbian female street youth". Apparently the problem of male sexual predators preying on homeless youth isn't just limited to homosexuals! Of cousre, you only quote articles concerning homosexuality, so I can understand how you might be confused. Perhaps some time you could do an article about how the majority of sexual predators are male? Oh, and have you done one about abusive homosexual clergy yet? It might be interesting to find out how many of them actually identified as homosexual before they were caught molesting young boys.

Finally, there's the wonderfully Conservapedian "Time Magazine Report on Teenager Homosexuality and Liberal Media Bias".

"The article was a typical example of liberal bias in regards to media coverage of the homosexuality issue."
That could use a citation, you know?

"According to the Traditional Values Coalition, most readers of Time magazine were unaware that John Cloud is a homosexual who had previously written for the liberal Washington City Paper in Washington, DC. about his visit to a "homosexual sex orgy club in Washington, DC."[7]"
That's just delightful. Here, let me dissect that TVC article...

Headline: "Homosexual Activist Poses As ‘Time’ Magazine Journalist"
I must say, he was incredibly good at pretending to be a Time Magazine journalist, considering he had worked at Time for eight years before writing that article.

"The article does not reveal that Cloud is a promiscuous homosexual who admits enjoying anonymous sex."
An interesting point, considering that Cloud's own sexual activities are irrelevant to the article.

"so-called “gay teens”"
This is fun - if a teen is homosexual, what's wrong with calling them a "gay teen"?

"homosexual radical Kevin Jennings"
I wonder, are there any sources which call him a radical which aren't vehemently anti-homosexual rights?

"He also carefully smears ex-gay ministries like Exodus International and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) by pointing out that some individuals struggling with same-sex attractions lose the battle to overcome these life-controlling behaviors."
Oddly enough, stating the truth is not a smear. Strange, I know!

"Cloud gets his political agenda into the article by quoting others who clearly support his views."
Oh my, that is damning.

"What most readers of Time magazine are unaware of is that John Cloud is a homosexual who has previously written for the liberal Washington City Paper in Washington, DC. "
I wonder how they know this about most Time readers? Because they don't state it anywhere in the article, yet you make clear mention of their claim in your article. Hmm. Guess you could use a citation here, too!

Anyway, looking forward to your response to all of this, some of this, or most likely none of this and a link to yet another article of unexplained relevance! Pascal 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

to RWians, re: the closet allegation

I find the recent fad of calling me a closet homosexual at RW rather amusing. Just because a person criticizes something doesn't mean they are engaging in repression. Am I a closet atheist or closet evolutionist as well? Gentleman, an inordinate emphasis on repression in psychology is very Freudian and the atheist Freud's work was very filled with pseudoscience as can be seen here http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Sigmund_Freud.27s_View_of_Religion and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article713089.ece (I don't agree with any of the positive commentary about Freud). When you have something more that baseless accusations inordinately based on a school of psychological thought filled with pseudoscience, then get back to me. Ruylopez 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken, I have no knowledge of your closet activities but often people have to make an issue of their beliefs in order to reinforce them. Constantly reaffirming a point of view suggests that there is some insecurity in holding that view. It's not a question of Freudian psychology. If you are really comfortable with your own views why do you have to go around trying to prove that the opposite is wrong but not be willing to debate the issues with those who hold opposing views? I say this as you have repeatedly locked pages at Conservapedia to protect yourself from criticism and rebuttal, and no longer enage in debate on your RW user page (go on, tell me that Newton is not really you). On a more personal note, I do hope that your physical and mental health is getting back to normal. You promised that you would be much less active on the web but don't really seem to have cut back much. You are obviously trying to make a go of your life with all those self-improvement links on your CP page, so I wish you the best for success in this economic climate. My best advice to you would be - invest in gold, you'll make a killing (I got in at $325/oz).Genghis 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ken, setting up a paper tiger to treat in your typical way isn't an effective rhetorical style and you know it. Neither is throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to your frequent attempts to discredit psychology and psychiatry as entirely pseudo-scientific on the basis of a few both real and perceived failings. Repression, displacement, and scapegoating are widely accepted among psychologists and psychiatrists as common unconscious defense mechanisms for unpleasant realities. People are observing patterns and drawing conclusions based on your behavior and you're not substantively addressing them. To this layperson, your patterns and the nature and quality of your articles and postings raise far more questions than answers. If it would please you more to not be subject to speculation, why not just answer the questions? Are you a closeted homosexual? If so, there's lots of help out there. You don't have to immediately give up on the CP "Conservative" persona because, after all, who knows better than you that the internet is anonymous given your prolific list of alter egos? What's with the huge number of non-substantive edits over hours and hours and hours? What's your honest assessment of your fixation on evolution, atheism, and homosexuality? Why these topics and no others? Why the exhibitionist shout outs in your Gentlemen postings (could you do what you do without the negative attention)? The disappointing and more often nonexistent results of your Ole Ole Ole crusade to single-handedly bring the death of atheism and the "evolutionary paradigm" on the internet? I'm genuinely curious. Teh Terrible Asp 18:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst not denying that there may be a phenomenon of being obsessed with arguing against something that you are inflicted with yourself, I have no doubt that Ruylopez is heterosexual and that any suggestions to the contrary are nothing more than typical unjustified RationalWiki mud-slinging. As site owner of aSK it's none of my business what RationalWiki says about someone, but as a human being I'm saying that this sort of denigration should stop. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Ken posts here disingenuously complaining there's anything like a fad at RW of calling him a closeted homosexual and that you chime in days late to say it should stop. Put on some waders and head on over to the cesspit to read for yourself. Few have concluded, as few should without better evidence, that Ken's gay. Lots of people are wondering why he doth protest so much and what's wrong in his life that he recently spent nearly 24 hours straight editing his pet articles. I think he's very obviously unwell. But I'm not his doctor and so far he's being obtuse about answering any inquiries. Maybe he'll chime in when he wakes up from crashing after his recent episode. Teh Terrible Asp 12:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether it's a "fad" or not, and whether it's stepped up "recently" (how recent?) or not, I have seen such comments in the past. I'm not saying that a lot are doing it, but I've seen enough of it in the past to justify my comment above. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple test for Ruylopez's gayness

  1. Ruylopez will not lie directly.
  2. Ruylopez will refuse to answer questions that would cause him to lie.
  3. Ruylopez, are you homosexual?

Sincerely, --Robledo 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I very nearly deleted this as an improper personal question, but instead I'll simply point out that there is a logical fallacy here. That he would refuse to answer to avoid a lie does not mean that avoiding a lie is the only reason to refuse to answer. Hence a refusal to answer will prove nothing. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Philip. Furthermore, if Ken is repressing these feelings of his then he is not conscious that he is gay. Therefore even a negative response would not be determinative. --Horace 02:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that it appears at least two or more RWians believe I will not lie directly! Secondly, your attempted line of reasoning has an additional flaw not previously mentioned. Questions do not cause people to lie. People choose to lie. People can and do lie without questions being asked of them. I think it is time for you to go back to the drawing board. Ruylopez 09:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Dutch?

Ken, I am not sure as to why you believe that both atheism and evolutionary theory are going to disappear. In fact as more research is performed evolutionary theory is strengthened, even CMI admits to micro evolution (changing their stance from anti evolution to anti parts of evolution). If anything your claims and bolstering of articles and websites that have no reasonable case against evolution seems to be most childish. If you really wanted to attack evolution then why do you not prove that the basic pillar of evolution is false; that natural selection coupled with mutation gives rise to changed life forms. I am sure that if CMI could not do it you are not able as well. In fact CMI seems to only have a core issue with the length of time it takes evolution since it does not match with a young earth motif (biblical motif if you will). As far as atheism goes, well people that shoved religion in my face are the ones that caused me to renounce Christianity. So your "singing" from the roof top may be just enough to cause some people to question their beliefs.

Oh you still did not respond to my comment about the letter vs. article in the journal.--Timsh 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a very misleading comment. CMI rejects the use of the term "microevolution" because it rejects that what it refers to is a little bit of something that if you have a lot of it would result in evolution. That is, "microevolution" is not a micro amount of goo-to-you evolution, but simply variation within the created kind. Further, what you claim CMI can't do is to prove a universal negative. The onus is on believers in evolution to proved that natural selection coupled with mutations can give rise to the evolutionary family tree, and CMI have quite successfully shown that this has not been done, and is in fact contrary to available evidence. CMI doesn't have an issue just with the time, but with the claimed mechanism. See http://www.creation.com/train for more on this last point. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Philip, CMI can reject the use of the term but it is basically what they believe. Evolution within kinds, in other words evolution without speciation is defined as microevolution. The so called goo to you concept is a combination of micro and macro evolutions, thus not something CMI believes. The onus has been shown through statistical models that given enough time the genetic diversity does increase and with random mutation can lead to different morphology. The reason for no lab experiments to show this degree of change is due to the length of time and conditions needed to observe macroevolution, however micro evolution has been observed in many natural and lab settings (enough that it has been agreed to happen by both sides). The only difference between micro and macro is time which if you follow the YEC motif, there is not enough of. So to say CMI does not have a problem with the time, is shown to be false by their very basic doctrine. (A very interesting point to make is the clarification on the train article you provided, almost laughable really, “Do not call it micro…”).

As for the other evidence, CMI is saying that there are not enough information gaining mutations to allow for evolution. I have mentioned in several cases where the term information is not static, due to the environment and selective pressures that the organism is placed in, therefore causing information to be a relative term whereas the gain or loss of it can only be measured in the current environment. It really is that simple. For example, there are many humans born with 6 fingers instead of 5. According to CMI this is caused by a loss of some regulation section of DNA. In this context evolution does not consider it a loss it is neutral. However if the current environment were to change where most humans would see an advantage to 6 fingers the selective pressures would change, mating would occur to propagate 6 fingered children and thereby lead to a population with 6 fingers. This example shows why the term information is truly misleading since it has to be based on context of the environmental pressures. Now I know you will comment about the genetics and DNA sequence, which is fine, I gave you examples somewhere of this occurring at the molecular level as well as the population level a while back. (Vpu, Vpr in HIV 1 and 2, sickle cell, Pseudomonas aeruginosa)

As for the goo-to-you, you have peaked an interest of mine which I am strongly thinking about researching. We all know that Dr. Miller recently passed and that his research was based on the creation of organic information molecules from a natural environment. We have seen from his work that there are many conditions where the information motif of RNA is easily formed in a natural setting; it has also been shown to be thermodynamically favorable as well. This is a backbone of what many consider chemical evolution. Why I said you peaked my interest is that I am currently looking at the thermodynamics of many of the basic gene manipulation machines and have found that most are thermodynamically favorable (not all but most), and these happen to be key for protein formation. So although we are still researching, it does look to be possible at this time.--Timsh 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Timsh, I didn't say that your comments were incorrect, but misleading. I stand by that. If evolution is defined as "any biological change", then of course CMI believes in evolution. But to say that CMI "admits to micro evolution" and is "anti parts of evolution" is still misleading, because they reject that "any biological change" is a fair and reasonable definition of "evolution".
...evolution without speciation is defined as microevolution. Perhaps so, but I've also seen anti-creationists claim that micro- and macro-evolution are terms only used by creationists, and although that claim is false, they are not (as far as I'm aware) terms that are widely used by evolutionists, and I'm not actually certain that there is a single agreed precise definition of them.
The onus has been shown through statistical models that given enough time the genetic diversity does increase ... True, but that's not goo-to-you evolution. Genetic diversity is totally explainable by a creationary model of diversification within created kinds, by a "sorting out" of existing genetic information.
The reason for no lab experiments to show this degree of change is due to the length of time and conditions needed to observe macroevolution... It's nice when people admit that there is no scientific (i.e. testable) evidence! An argument from a lack of evidence is not an argument.
The only difference between micro and macro is time... Oh? You indicate that you read the linked article, yet you simply assert something contrary to the whole point of that article, without any rebuttal whatsoever!
So to say CMI does not have a problem with the time... I didn't say that.
(A very interesting point to make is the clarification on the train article you provided, almost laughable really, “Do not call it micro…”) Huh?
According to CMI this is caused by a loss of some regulation section of DNA. In this context evolution does not consider it a loss it is neutral. So are you saying that (a) it is a loss of "some regulation section of DNA" but that evolution considers a loss to be not a loss, or (b) that six fingers is not caused by a loss of some regulation section of DNA?
However if the current environment were to change where most humans would see an advantage to 6 fingers the selective pressures would change, mating would occur to propagate 6 fingered children and thereby lead to a population with 6 fingers. Which says nothing about whether it's a loss of genetic information or not. It merely says that that particular change—whether a loss or not—is a survival advantage and is selected for.
This example shows why the term information is truly misleading since it has to be based on context of the environmental pressures. No, that's playing with words. If a television station reduces its news broadcast from 30 to 15 minutes, and picks up viewers because people like a shorter news broadcast, does that mean that the reduction of 15 minutes is not actually a reduction but a gain? Because that is effectively the argument that you are making about information.
Now I know you will comment about the genetics and DNA sequence... Oops, no I didn't (and I wrote the above reply before I read this next line!).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Point by point:

  • Evolution is not defined as “any biological change”, if the change causes the death or retards the gene dispersion of the organism then it is not evolution. With that being said what differentiates micro-evolution from what CMI believes occurs within kinds? (Mind that we are only speaking of the process of the change the semantics of species and kind are irrelevant in this case.)
  • I personally do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution since one is a scalar of the other. I only note the difference since many creationist organizations break evolution apart by saying the micro evolution occurs while macro evolution does not.
  • Actually that is goo-to-you given time and mutation factors. While the creationary model of diversification within created kinds does offer an explanation of genetic diversity there are areas that it can not account for, such as many primary biochemical functions of one species can be found in a related species but not in an unrelated species, this steps out of the kinds model considerably. A good example of this would be the proteins found in hair. In many related mammals, the structure and protein make up is very similar while in unrelated mammals the difference is great. Primate hairs and human hairs are closer in structure and protein make up than hairs found between an elephant and a hippo. Consider the implications of this compared to the creationary model where humans are their own kind as primates are of their own kind. Just to note, the concept that all genetic information was in place and that all current life is diversified by the removal of genetic information is very misleading. Whereas the deletion of genetic material does cause change the addition of genetic material is needed as well. Consider, if this concept had any truth to it we should be able to trace the lines of animals back to their most primitive form and see that the ancestor having more genetic information (defined as DNA that produces regulating signals and proteins). This is simply not so, even in modern humans we have seen cases of the child having more genetic information than the parent through additional proteins being expressed, case and point sickle cell heterozygous humans as well as many of those common genetic mutations that allow for certain attributes such as immunity to some naturally occurring plants, like poison ivy due to antigens being formed in the human even before exposure to the plant.
  • Your statement an argument from a lack of evidence is not an argument is misleading at best. Even though there is no lab experiments that show one organism morphing into another there are plenty of cases where an organism has adapted to a human induced change to their environment through genetic modification. Case and point, Pseudomonas aeruginosa While we have not seen one organism morph into another, it is inferred that if the organism can change in a genetic way to adapt to its environment through several populations then it is possible for the organism to be totally different from the original organism given enough time. If this seems like a false premise to you, then explain what would prevent this from occurring.
  • the CMI article did not provide an argument to support why time is not the only difference between micro and macro evolution. In fact the article does make an argument defeating the basic concept of change within kinds, saying that there is a net decrease of genetic information while also claiming that “Real-world observation has overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system” which is blatantly false. I have provided several examples of new information being added to a system through recombination due to heredity, through point mutation with duplication, and through simple mutation. I have just touched on the research that is out there supporting why the claim is false. There is one thing that the article does not address what mechanisms prevent the possibility of mutation leading to different physiological changes? The article makes these claims without supporting them with real information as to why they could not happen, thus providing a statement without any support or instances to infer outcomes with. So the point is, you can not have your cake and eat it too, either there are mechanisms that prevent genetic mutation to occur, and thus defeat evolution or there are mechanisms that allow for mutations to occur to induce changes within kinds. You see the paradox? One is just a scalar of the other leading back to my claim that the only issue is a matter of time.
  • I acknowledge that you did not say that CMI does not have a problem with time.
  • I was commenting about the little action block in the text of the main article instructing people to stop calling micro evolution “microevolution”.
  • You provided two responses to your question that are not truly related. The 6 finger thing is not simply caused by a “loss” of some regulation, there is far more involved because of the different tissues to form the fingers. As for Evolution seeing a loss as neutral, if it does not cause the retardation of the genetic material being dispersed into the population nor does it kill the organism then it is neutral unless it causes some selective advantage such as allowing for the inverse of the two criteria I gave. One point that needs to be made is that the negative always gets more attention than the positive. Case in point, if a mutation causes some debilitating condition you hear more about it as well as more funds are supplied to prevent it, whereas a positive mutation is not normally research due to interest, however there are examples. Such as height, or better metabolic conditions. There is a man in the US whose body’s metabolism is so efficient that he is a super endurance athlete, even though he looks overweight and out of shape. His body is so efficient at processing his food that he gains body fat faster than most humans when on a normal diet. Yet he is able to run marathons and lift more than most because of how efficient his body is. Now there is no current research to do all of the genetic traces for this condition, only the initial diagnosis of his condition was performed. Once again showing that the negative out weighs the positive. Thus the reason why it is so easy for research showing “losses” or negative mutations and not positive ones. Philip, even you may have a positive mutation that has been passed through your family line. I do, I am 98% Irish, confirmed through family linage tracing. As such my grandparents had much lighter skin and freckles and thus burned. I on the other hand retain the freckles yet have a slightly olive tone to my skin, not something seen in my family line for the past 4 generations. As such I do not burn as badly as my family nor do I have freckles covering my entire body. This is a benefit to me as I can endure the sun for longer periods of time than my family. To note, I live in the mid Atlantic region of the US and enjoy the beach, and my family had settled in this area as well. I now have two children, the first is the traditional red haired Irish boy with the pale skin and freckles (His mother is Irish as well) and my second son is of similar skin tone as mine. Once again showing that the positive genetic change is there but not worth researching outside of my personal interests due to it not having a negative impact on my life or my son’s.
  • To address the issue of addressing if the finger thing is a loss of information, it is really irrelevant since the environment has changed to cause the selective pressures to find the 6 fingers more favorable than 5. You seem to see evolution as a static entity when in fact it is very dynamic, changing constraints as often as the environment changes. For example, say in 50 years the human population starts to shift where tall men are found to be more attractive. The selective pressures would then cause a reduction of short men genes thereby leading to a shift in the net stature of the human population. This when compared to the human population of today would constitute a physiological change in the population; humans 50 years from now are taller than humans of today. Now to make a stronger case, say that in a small island the fad of tall men is not considered, but the opposite is true, short men are more desirable. As such the net population on the island becomes shorter as the tall men genes are weeded out. Now consider that if these populations continue down this path we find eventually a large difference between them in terms of height however an additional change occurs, the short guys on the island are being selected based on their having 6 fingers and more hair on their bodies. Whereas the other human population is being selected for 4 fingers and hairless bodies. So how long and how many changes occur before these offshoots of the original human population become different species? This is how sexual selection in evolution works which the other selective pressures of evolution work in a similar fashion, often limiting or inducing genetic shift through some other environmental constraint.
  • News, a reduction of time yes a reduction of purpose no, in fact it has achieved a greater audience. Genetic information is playing with terms. Consider the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA to RNA to proteins. We know through experimentation that while this dogma applies to many situations it does not apply to all. There are cases of RNA to DNA to RNA to proteins and proteins to RNA to DNA. For each transition step between there is processing of the final product that occurs. So to pinpoint and quantify genetic information is like quantum mechanics at this point in time, where you can not measure as system without inducing some sort of change to the system. As such the term genetic information is generally considered DNA that encodes for a protein or regulating signal. However this is also a misuse of the term since RNA can do almost everything that DNA does and more. So you see to quantify information is not simply, is the code there or not. (In fact there are many cases where there are parts added to the code during post translational processing). To the point however, information is only relevant in the context of how it is being used. In the 5 to 6 finger example we shall used the concept that a repeat in the code causes the additional 6th finger. In past conversations you have said that a repeat is not “new” and thus “more” information but in this case the organism has an additional digit. So in the context of new instructions on the genetic code, there is not a change to the information. In the context of the size of the genetic code there is an increase therefore a change thus being new information. Finally in the context of the organism there is a change, being an additional finger, which would be an increase to body mass thus new information. So quantifying information depends on context as shown with this statement. Therefore making a claim as definitive as no “new” or “increase” in information is like providing a velocity without a direction. Information is a vector quantity thus it requires a comparison with some independent variable (as I provided in the previous sentence).
  • I am glad you did not comment about genetics and DNA, although I did it for you:).--Timsh 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
My wording "any biological change" was rather loose, but near enough for this discussion. Would you prefer "a change in allele frequency"?[3]
There may be no distinction between micro-evolution and what creationists such as those at CMI believe, depending on how micro-evolution is defined.
Actually that is goo-to-you given time and mutation factors. My point was that "increase" in "genetic diversity" can be accounted for without invoking factors required for goo-to-you evolution.
...there are areas that it can not account for, such as many primary biochemical functions of one species can be found in a related species but not in an unrelated species, this steps out of the kinds model considerably. Are you talking about genetic differences or variation, or are you talking about the action of diversifying? The creationary model can explain the former (God created similar creatures with similar functions), whilst the latter presumes evolution, so creation has nothing to explain.
Just to note, the concept that all genetic information was in place and that all current life is diversified by the removal of genetic information is very misleading. Only if it's incorrect. Your reasons presume your explanation to be correct, but if the creationary explanation is correct, it's not misleading at all.
...addition of genetic material is needed as well. Only for the evolutionary view.
...even in modern humans we have seen cases of the child having more genetic information than the parent... Only if you define 'information' in some statistical sense and ignore the meaning of the data.
...if the organism can change in a genetic way to adapt to its environment through several populations then it is possible for the organism to be totally different from the original organism given enough time. Different in what way? Loss or gain of genetic information? If the latter, an objection is that gain of genetic information is not observed.
the CMI article did not provide an argument to support why time is not the only difference between micro and macro evolution. On the contrary, not only did it provide an argument, it highlighted it! "What we need to be aware of, and focus on in our answers, I tell audiences, is not the amount of change, but the type or direction of change. It is not just that the train has not gone far enough, but that it is headed in the wrong direction." (italic and bold in original)
...the article does make an argument ... while also claiming that “Real-world observation has overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system” which is blatantly false. I have provided several examples of new information being added to a system... It's not "blatantly false". You are defining "information" in a different way.
So the point is, you can not have your cake and eat it too, either there are mechanisms that prevent genetic mutation to occur, and thus defeat evolution or there are mechanisms that allow for mutations to occur to induce changes within kinds. You see the paradox? One is just a scalar of the other leading back to my claim that the only issue is a matter of time. That claim ignores the point of the article, which is that the direction is the thing that matters.
I was commenting about the little action block in the text of the main article instructing people to stop calling micro evolution “microevolution”. Okay. Even knowing that, your comment still doesn't make sense to me.
The 6 finger thing is not simply caused by a “loss” of some regulation, there is far more involved because of the different tissues to form the fingers. The sixth finger uses a different type of tissue than the other five???
Your paragraph about positive and negative mutations is still missing the point of whether they are information-gaining or -losing mutations. That "positive" (beneficial) mutations exist is not at issue, as positive mutations can be due to a loss of information.
To address the issue of addressing if the finger thing is a loss of information, it is really irrelevant ... No, it is extremely relevant. The hypothesised original single-celled creature had no genetic information for hair, blood, skin, bones, livers, hearts, fingers, fingernails, wings, feathers, scales, and so on. Evolution must be able to explain where all this genetic information came from. Losses of information cannot explain gains of information. Your example of six-fingered and four-fingered men is a good explanation of variation, natural selection, and (possibly) even speciation, but does not explain where the genetic information for fingers came from.
Genetic information is playing with terms. No it's not. The human genome has instructions on the construction of fingers. This is genetic information. Where did it come from?
So you see to quantify information is not simply, is the code there or not. ... In the 5 to 6 finger example we shall used the concept that a repeat in the code causes the additional 6th finger. The genetic information for fingers includes the genetic information for them being skin surrounding flesh surrounding bone, with joints for flexibility and tendons to move them, and fingernails growing out the ends. I'm sure that this information is included once with there also being an instruction to "do this five times on each hand" (with suitable modification for each, especially the thumb). A six-fingered person will have that last instruction corrupted so that it says "do this six times on each hand". As such, there is no new information (instructions), but simply a corruption of the existing information. Even if the entire finger instruction set was duplicated for the sixth finger, we could say that the origin of this information (the instructions for the sixth finger) was the information for the other five. But that says nothing about where the information for the original five came from.
In past conversations you have said that a repeat is not “new” and thus “more” information but in this case the organism has an additional digit. Yes, but no new information!
So in the context of new instructions on the genetic code, there is not a change to the information. In the context of the size of the genetic code there is an increase therefore a change thus being new information. Only if you define "new information" in that way, but that doesn't explain the origin of the instruction for fingers. This is actually an equivocation. The problem is to explain the origin of the information (instructions) for fingers. So you define "information" in a way that includes duplication of existing information, and then consider that as you've demonstrated "new" information, you've somehow explained the origin of the information for constructing fingers. The problem is that you've done no such thing; you've simply changed the definition to something else that doesn't answer the problem.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
While a little limited on time I will address the main issue in your response, the question of new information; where it comes from and what it constitutes. I will use an observed example found in HIV to support the claim. I have used this example before Vpu vs Vpr. Vpu exists in one form of HIV while Vpr exists in both forms of HIV (1 and 2). They are similar in size ~14 kDa, and have an 88% conserved sequence between the two. Vpu came about through the repeat of the Vpr gene and then additional point mutations of the Vpr to form the Vpu. If you are unaware of viral genomes, most are very unstable and have a high mutation rate, as is the case with HIV. The point I am making is that “new” genetic information comes about from the repeat and further mutation of the repeat to form a new protein complex with different results. As such most new information is not detected because the proteins are not causing some illness (and if they are they are considered a disorder) but sit in the background until some use of them happens. At this time there have been no proposed mechanisms to challenge that this as the basic function of changing (increasing, decreasing or modifying) genetic information.
Also, as I stated above information is a vector, it needs an independent variable to measure its change against. Therefore saying “new” information means nothing unless you provide what old is.
As for the 5 to 6 finger thing, I overly simplified that example since the biomechanics that would allow for that change would have several variables, thus you can neither say it is new or not since the actual cause is not yet determined. From my experience a change like that (Mind you several years since my last course of molecular embryology in the 90’s) would be caused by a combination of signaling, hox, and biochemical mutation. You point of the tissues matters not since tissues will form when there is a lack of cell signaling telling them to stop. What does matter is what initiates the change for the beginning of the finger not the end product.
As for quantifying genetic information, you have to define what is being measured. Case one, the number of base pairs. If so than an ameba has the largest genetic information. Case two, if it is the proteins created then there are many insects that would be considered having the largest genetic information. Case three, if it is the ratio of genomic size vs. proteins expressed then bacteria would have the highest genetic information (98% of their genome encodes where as less than 5% of a human’s genome encodes proteins). So to add the term of “new” you have to define what you consider information first, which to this date has been left ambiguous with the phrase “meaningful information”.
I think one basic concept that should be focused on by creationists is to show that replication of a piece of DNA into a genome along with mutation does not induce new genetic information. To this date no one from the creationist camp has provided a reasonable explanation as to why this can not induce new information.
Just as a final background, most DNA encodes for nothing in a human, either the DNA sequence has stop codons making the translated piece to small and easily degraded or some such. Be that as it may, if almost 95% of the human genome does not encode for something then what prevents a random mutation from knocking out one of those stop codons and cause a protein to be transcribed? At this point nothing, thereby leading to the variation within the species as we see it. Increase the variation and eventually you have an organism totally different than the original. Train argument again. To address the train from CMI, CMI is basing their conclusion on partial evidence that the changes we see are through a loss. They have yet to acknowledge the changes we see due to gain as I have given several examples many times and provided background as to why this is not the direction of research (nor research funding). So as long as we are concentrating on curing diseases we will not be concentrating on the positive mutations that lead to adaptations to human life, well of course the ones we stumble upon being excluded from this list.--Timsh 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Timish, have you looked at the front page of Conservapedia lately? Ruylopez 05:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Ken, why do you not provide something with some substance? Also, you never responded to my points above. At least Philip gives a good argument; you on the other hand seem to hide when pressed. Why do you not research and provide an argument with some teeth? I could care less what a bunch of right wingers do regarding a topic they have a superficial understanding of. Perhaps you could enlighten me by debating me online about evolution? Philip, perhaps we could make a page for Ken and me to do some point by point addresses to questions that the users of the wiki pose about evolutionary theory? How about it Ken? You said you would take people down in debate in the past why not accept my challenge? We can model it as a list of questions by the uses that we need to address fully and allow the users to vote who provided the most complete answer. So are you up to the challenge?--Timsh 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Timsh, you wrote of the "evolutionary theory"? Don't you mean evolutionary hypothesis? Ruylopez 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't feed the troll. It should be obvious that Kendoll here is only interested in using aSoK as his own personal link farm. Of course, he's far to stupid to realise all the links are tagged "nofollow." --Jeeves 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeeves, are you sure about your above statements? Jeeves, I think your overconfidence is quite misplaced. :) Jeeves, you might want to consider watching this video as it could be quite instructive as far as your overconfidence in making spurious claims. Ruylopez 03:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Given your use of deceit, linkspamming, search engine gaming and absolute failure to do anything except quote others (in context or viciously outside of it), you really have nothing to be proud of. Pascal 04:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KenRoyConLoptive, if you look at the html source of this page page you will see <a href="http://www.c...Theory" class="external text" title="http://www.c...Theory" rel="nofollow">evolutionary hypothesis?</a> (long links cleaned up to make this readable) external links are all tagged nofollow and thus google does not do anything with them... and certainly not search engine rating boosting. Google knew about this back in '05 and has long since had a way of dealing with spam from unsolicited sources in public spaces. Your linkspamming and search engine gaming have no effect whatsoever here other than annoying people. Maybe this is your intent, but it really isn't furthering your cause. You are either preaching to the choir or infidels - neither of which are going to change any opinions based on an "article" elsewhere. --Shagie 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that my detractors are still fond of throwing charges out without supporting them. Secondly, the evolutionary hypothesis comment still stands. Ruylopez 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Ken, I do not mean evolutionary hypothesis, I mean theory. You may spin as much as you want but the facts are evolution has been tested and found far more rigorous than many other theories. Just to support this consider:
  1. Similar biomolecules are found in organisms with close pedigree.
  2. Gene similarity between organisms with close pedigree.
  3. Mutation as a pillar of adaptation.
  4. Progressive morphological changes found in fossil histories as well as morphological changes found within observed species histories.
Of which are items that are predicted by the theory of evolution. Now try to list the items from say the theory of quantum entanglement.
Ken, How about providing some actual evidence as to why the theory of evolution is bunk? If you believe it is false then give us the evidence that falsifies it. Here, let me help you by giving you a falsification of the theory of evolution and you can try to provide some evidence saying that it occurred.
“Whereas, all organisms are related to a distant ancestor, there exists a method or methods that allow for the transference of existing chemical instruction to inorganic chemical motifs there by forming said motifs into chemical instructions for further transference.” To falsify this find an example of an organism that reproduces offspring that do not receive chemical instruction from the existing parent organism. You do this and evolution is disproved.--Timsh 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I seek a reassurance from you on the new article

Recently you began promoting an article on creation.com by "Mariano", the writer of several Christian apologetic blogs, most of them anti-atheist in nature. I have not yet taken the time to read it in-depth.

During the past year, I was witness towards an interesting incident on Conservapedia. Several pages were made about the various anti-atheist blogs Mariano wrote, with those same blogs mentioned in at least one of your articles about atheism. At roughly the same time, many of Mariano's blogs began to link to your articles on Conservapedia. I would be an idiot not to assume a direct connection between these two occurrences.

The most interesting part, however, was what happened during this time. Several of these articles about blogs by Mariano were edited by a new user named "Mariano" (or a very close approximation), and I believe one or two were even created by him. I saw this.

I also saw that the articles completely neglected to mention that the same author was responsible for each of the blogs, and several other users edited this into the articles and raised the issue on the talk pages.

I then saw that you deleted all of the articles about Mariano's blogs without any explanation, then recreated them from older versions. These versions lacked any reference to Mariano or the fact that the blogs all had the same author. The deletion/recreation also served to remove the history of edits to these articles, obscuring the fact that the user "Mariano" had edited and removing all the edits mentioning him. You then protected all these articles so that no one else could edit them.

Given that blatant deceit, which I can only assume Mariano agreed to go along with, why should I put any faith in the contents of his article now? Can you vouch that he is a more honest individual now than you were back then? Pascal 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

...which I can only assume Mariano agreed to go along with... That's a rather big assumption, I would think. And even if true, it would be in the context of a Conservapedia newcomer "agreeing" with a Conservapedian administrator; not something that he necessarily has much choice about anyway.
Can you vouch that he is a more honest individual now than you were back then? Comparing Mariano's honesty now with Ruylopez' honesty then? With that sort of comparison you seem to be desperate to find some excuse to disregard Mariano. Or to find an excuse to criticise Ruylopez.
...why should I put any faith in the contents of his article now? His article should stand or fall on its merits, not on any strained connection with Ruylopez. But for what it's worth, articles don't get posted on the CMI site without having gone through some sort of peer review. It's probably not the formal peer review they use for their Journal, but the article would have been checked by two or three others before being posted.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Pascal, I think you are being deceitful concerning your allegation of me being supposedly engaging in deceit. Not offering a rationale/explanation for an action or actions I do (in this case edits to CP) is certainly not deceit. When you actually support your allegation of deceit on my part please get back to me. Please do not expect a further response me should you wish to continue your childish behavior. Ruylopez 03:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ruylopez, though I generally agree with your post, you stepped on one of my pet peeves. "Substantial" means "having substance" or "of substance", whereas "substantive" more properly means "the substance of". For example; in a project one can have a substantive role that is not substantial, and a substantial role other than their substantive one. At least, that's the case in English. Maybe it's different in American. :) BradleyF (LowKey) 03:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then, a challenge

If you can explain your reason for deleting the histories of those articles through deletion/recreation and locking the articles so they can't be edited, and it is a convincing reason that does not involve obscuring the fact that the same person writes all those blogs and was apparently editing the articles, I will retract my claim of deceit and apologize. Pascal 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

... or to paraphrase : "I accuse you. Prove yourself innocent to my satisfaction and I will retract my accusation." Given that a) you are working from an assumption of guilt, and b) the actions you described actually removed the edits you considered inappropriate, why are you owed an explanation/justification? BradleyF (LowKey) 04:41, 23 June 2009 (UT
I do not consider the edits by Mariano inappropriate. Distasteful, yes, but not inappropriate. What I consider inappropriate is the apparent censorship of the fact those edits were made, as well as the removal of edits by other users which pointed out that the same author wrote all the blogs. Not to mention the locking of the articles right after those edits were made and removed. I don't feel I'm owed an explanation, but one could certainly help me make up my mind as to whether Ruy is an honest or dishonest advocate of his views. Pascal 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Appropriately distateful? :D I think that is actually a matter of degrees. As I indicated there are explanations other than deceit that could be considered, but you claimed deceit. You may think what you wish of the whole "episode" but it is not acceptable to openly claim deceit and then "challenge" (your word) the accused to justify himself. As to you making up your mind about Ruylopez, your initial post showed that your mind was already made up, and you were attributing some sort of complicity to "Mariano" as well. I will not attempt to justify the general goings on at CP, and I know that there is no way to raise concerns or objections there, but if you are going to raise CP related concerns here then I would personally recommend that they be expressed neutrally if possible. BradleyF (LowKey) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Also, by making the claim and setting the conditions by which you will retract it, you are claiming that you are owed an explanation, though not directly. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I will admit that my initial request that Ruy vouch for Mariano (and the unveiled implication that Mariano was complicit in Ruy's apparent censorship) was poorly conceived. It stemmed from the fact that I was beginning to write an essay on flaws I perceived in Mariano's latest article, and the start of that essay detailed the events I described above (which, I will restate for good measure, I personally bore witness to). Unfortunately, certain technical complications on my system mean that I can be full steam into writing something, only for the application to crash on me, potentially wasting some of my work. Combined with my short attention span, that leads to frustrated and hasty decision-making, and coming straight here to detail Ruy's previous actions allowed me to soothe my irritation for a bit. It was a mistake, what I wrote was very poorly worded and I admit that now. But I will not apologize for it, because I still believe he practiced deceit, and no one has provided an alternative explanation for why he did those things. Not you, not PJR, not Ruy.
I frame it as "deceit" because I cannot conceive of it being anything else, even should I heed the Schlafly-ism of "opening my mind". Also, I really don't believe that I'm even indirectly claiming I'm owed an explanation. That would only be the case if I believed Ruy had an obligation to explain himself to me. I don't think he does, although as I've indicated, I'd certainly appreciate him doing so. Pascal 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't spell out an alternative, but I highlighted (highlit?) a fact that easily led to other explanations. Ruylopez could have looked it over and though "that's all got to go", or someone could have emailed a complaint. I am not suggesting that blowing away the whole thing and restoring an older version is the best way to go about it, but doing so does not automatically indicate deceit. I reiterate, you are not merely holding the belief that deceit was practiced; you have made the claim but not backed it up with more than "I am personally convinced." Ironically, your "I will not apologize" came after what was technically an apology (I know what you meant, it just seemed a little humourous to me). If you don't think you are owed an explanation, than you should withdraw the claim of deceit, or at the very least modify it to indicate that it is your opinion. As it is, Ruylopez has indicated that there won't be an explanation forthcoming while the speculative accusation stands as it is. BradleyF (LowKey) 04:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Highlighted ("highlit" is pleasantly compact but not an actual word). I believe the fact you highlighted concerned Mariano's edits, which some would consider inappropriate. And it's true that Ruy's deletion and recreation removed the history of those edits. But, and I suppose it's my fault for not making this clear, it did not remove the edits themselves (and, as I stated above, I believe Mariano made at least one of those articles about his own blogs, although I admit I may be misremembering that specific detail). Mariano's edits remained in those articles, but the evidence that he made them was removed, and so were the edits by other users which detailed the fact that he was the author of those blogs. Perhaps I'm taking your highlight so far, but I believe that explanation only negates my claim of deceit if Ruy's actions removed Mariano's edits. It also doesn't offer a very good explanation for why the articles remain protected to this day.

I'm going to go on record as saying this: A compelling reason must exist to delete and recreate an article in a way which removes the history of edits.

And from my point of view, no compelling reason existed for Ruy to do so except to obscure the record of who had edited that article (Mariano) and what edits were made (those explaining that all the blogs had the same author). That, in my view, was a dishonest action. That, in my view, is deceit. And I will continue to believe it is deceit, and say it is deceit, until I am least given an alternative for why some edits were kept, some were removed, the articles were locked and their histories destroyed.

Ruy may not answer my challenge, and he doesn't have to. I am not holding his talk page hostage or keeping him from engaging with others. But I saw what I saw, and no one has provided an alternative explanation which fits the facts.Pascal 04:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pascal, I think you need to take out your rug and take a nap. By the way, let me know when your temper tantrum is over. Ruylopez 06:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ruy, I have two simple questions for you. First, do you plan to address what I have written above directly, either through denial of my accusations or explanation of your actions? Two, given that you have described what I have written as a "temper tantrum", exactly what would my disposition towards you have to be in order for you to engage in straightforward conversation with me?Pascal 07:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Invasion of Britain

I'm afraid no-one's succeeded in over 900 years. Still, best of luck to you. EddyP 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are definitely wrong in this matter. The Almighty invaded Britain many years ago and the effects are still with us today. In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain: "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[4] Ruylopez 17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
In his autobiography, Mein Kampf, the evolutionary racist Adolph Hitler wrote that "Britan is the last domino to fall before my invasion is complete. A National Socialist world is barred only be the eistance of that island nation... it must fall as soon as humanly possible"
In regards to the invasion of britan, it must be noted that Adolph Hitler was a strong proponent of the invasion of Britan. In regards to this predisposition, noted historian T. Ernest Zwieglenkam wrote that
Hitler's Christian faith was most likeley the defining factor in his decision to invade Britan- and, without the teachings of the Old Testament that it is acceptable to attack those who were not God's chosen people, perhaps WWII would have never been started

The EmperorRise, my apprentice 17:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the alleged "Christian faith" of Hitler is a spurious claim. Can anyone verify the alleged comments by Goebbels and Speer via a credible web source (for example the alleged diary entry of Goebbels in 1939) as I do not trust the accuracy of this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements Ruylopez 17:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I just spoke to a gentleman in the UK hours ago and I heard some good news concerning the continued erosion of the evolutionary paradigm.  :) Ruylopez 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ken, can anyone verify the alleged comments by this gentleman in the UK via a credible web source as I do not trust the accuracy of this source: [5]--Timsh 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ken, Christianity entered Britain more than 900 years ago, and it's losing now, I'm afraid. The Daily Telegraph - a very conservative paper - ran a small story yesterday about how a survey showed that six in ten British teens believe 'religion has a negative effect on the world'. A number cited reality TV as being more important than Christianity to them. This generation will grow up and have kids, and to those kids Christianity will be even less important. The younger generation holds the world. EddyP 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Source. EddyP 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no denying many of the Brits have become fools and are paying the price. I would not be surprised to see those same teens cry out to God, when the coming economic tidal wave hits Britain and probably the entire world. Ruylopez 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for answering this person but please: can you make a statement on any subject without using damn silly UTube videos? Even your text quotes are preferable (just) Ken. (Oh and what's the "coming economic tidal wave" (?) got to do with God? Is it teh "RAPTURE"?) User 11speak to me 06:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, I picture is often worth a thousand words, therefore a YouTube made up of many pictures is often worth thousands of words. I will continue to use YouTube videos for the sake of brevity and to conserve aSK resources. :) Ruylopez 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CP evolution article

What has happened Ken? You are boasting of a top 20, placing in Canada. What happened to the top ten result for a search engine starting with G for a popular search starting with E? I did a search today, third page on both US and AUS. π 02:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

PI, Rome was not built in a day. Secondly, I think the gentlemen at a search engine beginning with a G probably made a significant change in their algorithm due a search engine that rolled out that begins with a B (as in Bing). The CP evolution article dropped 10 rankings which relatively speaking is not very significant as there are at least 188,000,000 search results for the E search query.  :) By the way, the truly heavy artillery has not been rolled out as I am rather busy as of late plus there is another consideration as well which I will not discuss as I like being rather enigmatic. :) Ruylopez 17:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Bing is good. I had to go six page before I found your "article". π 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's number 5 for me, 4 if you search Theory of Evolution. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The first two results I got were Australian, so you would be less likely to get them and it was top of page 6. I must say the fact that it brings up 3 companies I was not interested in before Wikipedia is a little worrying. A search engine should aim to give you the most informative results first and Wikipedia qualifies for that on most searches. π 23:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Jpatt has Bing ranking Conservapedia #5 for the search "evolution". Seeing as Bing is likely going to rank the Encarta article on evolution #1 for some time (Encarta is owned by Microsoft), a #5 ranking is pretty good. Ruylopez 06:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears as if Bing USA and Bing Canada ranks the CP evolution article high (first ten results), but Bing UK and Bing Australia does not. Ruylopez 07:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh Canada!

Attention Canadian evolutionists! Conservapedia now nearly ranks in the Google top 10 for the very popular search "evolution" at Google Canada! The Conservapedia evolution article ranks #12 at Google Canada for the search evolution![6] The article appears to be rapidly gaining prominence on the Canadian internet. Will this creation science wildfire spread to the USA, UK, and beyond? Please stay tuned for further developments! The excitement is raging! Ruylopez 05:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Pascal 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
So now aSK is a platform for Ken's rants? Well, so it goes. User 11speak to me 06:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In the open internet unprotected by the disgraceful and heavyhanded tactics of liberal judges and liberal academia, I don't think the evolutionary paradigm is going to be doing too well in the future. :) Ruylopez 06:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Trent! Have you seen which article ranks #12 at Google Canada for the search evolution?

Hi Trent! Have you seen which article ranks #12 at Google Canada for the search evolution? Ruylopez 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that you feel the need to promote these meaningless search rankings. Have you ever checked where the links to the article are located and what they have to say about it? ħuman Number 19 22:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Bible believing Christians with doctorates have linked to my articles, but the larger point is you have yet to show one single factual error in the Conservapedia evolution article (On this point, you and Trent have something in common - the cat has definitely got your tongues :) ).
Personal tools
visitor navigation