Fun talk:Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 September 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Background[edit]

Nice. Can you make the tumbleweeds the background? (Might not be do-able in wikicode.) --SockOfGulik 23:01, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Good idea. I didn't like the six iterations of the image, but what the hell. I centered them, at least. BG would be nice, but, yeah, I don't think MW supports that. We could always try... html tables allow them... humanbe in 02:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Synchronized tumbleweeds! People will seriously argue that as God's existence (teleological, clustering illusion). ThiehZOYG I edit like Ken! 02:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

God[edit]

ok so if you define god and realise that its like a sheet of paper. a sheet of paper doesn't scratch itself when its itchy.

what really is God?

If what is called gravity holds things together, then is that akin to what you would call God.

I believe that whatever is in the best interest of human life and perseverance should be adhered to.

This includes Economies, Reward systems created to ensure everything together and freedom of technology.— Unsigned, by: 121.73.150.243 / talk / contribs

And the evidence for God's existence is?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Weren't you paying attention Bob? The evidence is that pieces of paper don't scratch themselves when they itch. QED.tmtoulouse 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the baby libertarianism sweet? Somehow gOD is analogous to the free market. Bob Soles (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just thinking about the gravity one. I can do it with marshmallows. "If those things called marshmallows are sweet, then is that akin to what you would call God."--BobSpring is sprung! 10:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hah that is delightful thanks Bob. It was really meant as a question to ponder on. If certain factors can be negated then discovery will still come. why can't both exist (God and evolution) at the same time? If you created something you would most likely want it to evolve, Don't even need to keep an eye on it then. As far as I know, God is some creature out of pictures and story books. Evolution seems slightly real, because I can imagine a snake growing legs. Besides the point of snakes and lizards being around at the same time, I can understand why some scientists think that humans are related to monkeys. Makes sense when seen from this perspective. Anyway this is a discussion on the evidence that there is a God. The only evidence of a being that created a universe or two would be the method such God used to create said universe(s). Unless you can think of another way, say if the creator could interact in real time with creators creation, then find out which frequency or energy level is used for this medium. Although operating within a set universe limits this. Whereas theoretically God is outside of these limits. — Unsigned, by: 121.73.150.243 / talk / contribs
You seem to be speculating about some form of deist god. Something who set things in motion and then left it all to happen. What evidence do you have suggesting that such a being exists?--BobSpring is sprung! 10:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
With what Voltare Says "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.", could the collective consciousness of all things with a mind be considered god? There is plenty of evidence, that large radio-magnetic fields form around the Human physicality. Although I have no knowledge of studies into the effects of the interactions between multiple human fields. something to prove maybe ... — Unsigned, by: 121.73.150.243 / talk / contribs 8:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we have to go that far into science fiction - the human mind has a tendency to see patterns where there are none, and we don't like not having an explanation - so we invent one, like Zeus for thunder. But apparently that's not what Voltaire meant, according to wikipedia it was a retort to atheists' claims. -- Nx / talk 08:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi 121. I note that you speculate vaguely about things which could be called God. But I'm afraid that I'm still not seeing any evidence for His existence. --BobSpring is sprung! 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of amusing. Before one can consider providing evidence of anything, does that thing not need to be defined?

Once defined then comes the question of what rules of evidence would apply. The rules of evidence necessarily relate to the definition, and a common error is for people to attempt to apply invalid rules of evidence when asking for proof.

If for example god is defined as a natural force, then science which deals with natural forces would apply, however, if one defines god as supernatural, then science applies a self limiting priori of investigating the natural world would be an invalid rule of evidence to apply when asking for proof of a supernatural being. Both sides go back and forth but neither seems to be able to figure this out.. very amusing! — Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs

God doens't exist. He is just a fairy tale that everyone thinks is real.
Stop being so stupid and believe what can be proved. — Unsigned, by: 99.22.198.22 / talk / contribs 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Paluxy tracks[edit]

I offer up the Paluxy tracks. Dinosaur footprints with footprints , possibly humanoid walking alongside. This is clear evidence of Jesus walking with his pet. What more could you want ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In refutaion, I offer this sorry excuse of an article. the link is good though. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
67, why haven't you created an account here? I like the cut of your gib. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually our BON gives a very good answer in that it responds to both parts of the challenge. Both evolution and God's existence. It makes me wonder if this should be two seperate articles. That is, one for evolution is a hoax and the other for God's existence. At the moment any answer theoretically has to answer both parts simultaneously which does set the bar rather high.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
sorry, forgot to log in :( already a member the inedible Hamster (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Split, or something[edit]

This could be two articles: "Evidence for evolution being a hoax" and "Evidence for God's existence" - the two arguments are not inseparable. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is weird. But do we really need more than one page based on this joke? Even having this one and the homeopathy one is stretching it a bit. It doesn't matter, but I would vote for having one article called Evidence for the supernatural. That pretty much covers the whole thing. Mei (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a name for the logical fallacy saying that if evolution was found to be a hoax, that would prove God's existence? The two aren't linked. --Grey (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
False dilemma I think. Mei (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There's List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence as well. Redirect all of them to Evidence for God's existence? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC)True, tacking on the "god's existence" bit is just cheap and crap. And anyway, you could pull up evidence for that (theologians have been doing it for centuries), just not particularly strong or convincing evidence or evidence for a specific god. Mei and Grey, yeah, it'd be a false dichotomy/dilemma and I don't think we should encourage it being thought like that by having this as a combined thing. Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
@totnesmartin - Second that. Redirecting all to one article is the best option. I'll wait to hear a few other opinions though. Mei (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say (as I said above) that they are two different challenges.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, they are very different. And the "list of scientists..." one may have some problems. Jason Lisle, for instance, as well as numerous others that I don't recall off the top of my head. We can't just outright say that there are none in that case. Scarlet A.pngmoral 13:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
But I don't see why this would be better as one article. These "challenge" things seem to generate interest - logically we should have more rather than less.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't keep articles just because they generate interest - if we did that we might as well have [[Dragonball Z fan art]] and [[Naked Barack Obama scandal]] as well. I suggested merging them to one article because they're based on the same gimmick. It's the same joke, and in this case it doesn't even make sense. Having one, as "Evidence for the supernatural" would be snarky and efficient - having loads makes us look messy and kinda immature to be brutally honest. Mei (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Mei is right there, though I'm de-redlinking those on principle. "Evidence for the supernatural" as the main one being directed to makes sense to me as they're pretty much the same gag and the same question. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I put the squarebrackets back in so it still makes sense. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't do it this way to start with. Mei (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a problem, I just didn't want to risk that popping up on the wanted list :P Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right that the simple fact that an article generates interest does not justify inclusion. The fact that an article generates a lot of interest and is on mission most certainly does justify inclusion. The challenge articles tick both boxes.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You're assuming that 'on mission' is an on-off quality. This article is on mission in a general sense, but it's butchered title is a drawback that could easily be corrected to make it more on mission. Articles with clear titles and intents are just self-evidently better. Interest is still not relevant, because we would get just as much for a [[Evidence for God's existence]] article. And repeating the same joke with no variation is just patronizing. Do we think our readers should be idiots? Do we put more value on readers who don't read much of the wiki and hence wouldn't notice the duplication? Mei (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that there should be articles "Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax" and "Scientific evidence for God's existence", them I'm all for it as these would both be better titles and it's what I'm arguing for. While I'm reluctant to call people idiots, I rather imagine the each of the two articles would certainly speak to a different crank audience.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I !vote for two articles. Tumbleweeds all 'round! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote against putting all our snarks in the one box. Supernatural is not jut religion.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So - shall we split it into two articles then? Or we tied on the issue?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with splitting. Deciding whether to redirect is a different issue. Mei (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it as is. Blunt, to the point, a moron magnet and true - David Gerard (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Compelling[edit]

Well, I suppose I can't refute this. The tumbleweeds are a very compelling argument. Extremely well-written article! Chrisbrl88 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Listing all the arguments in favour of both would be more hi-LARious but a waste of valuable time we could be using to take drugs and hold gay orgies. Lacrimosus (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That, and there really is no real scientific evidence against evolution. Thus why it is a scientific theory. Of course, silly cretinist don't actually understand what a scientific theory is, so they dismiss it as "just a theory," even though those who actually understand science know that theories hold more weight than most morons acknowledge. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 04:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Darwin's theory is incomplete. Evidenced first by the attempts of neo-darwinism to account for Genetics and secondly by Gould's introducing catastrophism (natures lawn mower) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Of course since Gould did not introduce any new evidence but rather a rational for why evidence Darwin says must exist for his theory to be true does not exist Gould does not introduce anything new to the theory and can basically be dismissed. Certain aspects of Darwin's theory are observable, testable and can be reproduced experimentally and therefore have the benefit of scientific proof. Several aspects of neo-darwinism are still lacking in evidence and arguably go against observational and experimental evidence. Variation within a species is well founded in science however formation of a new species through the selection of accumulated mutations so far has not been observed or experimentally proven. The genetic similarities between species is anecdotal evidence and would fall into the same realm as quackery (homeopathy for example) which rely heavily on anecdotal evidence. Most of the claimed 'new species" being formed due to evolution are actually examples of creatively re-defining the word species or have not yet been subjected to experimental attempts to disprove such an event (yes attempting to experimental disprovability is also a part of the process). All these things notwithstanding, evolution as a theory has no applications in the real world beyond what has already been applied for thousands of years. It is a pretty useless science other than for selective breeding of crops or animals.— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
First of all, you would be taken more seriously if you signed you post. Second, Cite your sources. — Unsigned, by: TemplarJLS / talk / contribs
Oh, the irony! And don't waste your time responding to something that some anon wrote more than 4 years ago! Spud (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

the existence of God[edit]

Sooo many people who ask to hear an argument about the existence of God...nobody listening. Foremost, anyone asking for prooooof of the existence of God has already made up their mind that HE doesn't exist. I could simply say 'prove He doesn't exist, since neither I nor God feel a need to prove our own existence. We already know we exist. Atheists, however, aren't sure. So how about this, since I know self-proclaimed atheists feel no need to prove that God doesn't exist, prove that YOU exist. What, you don't feel you have to? Running away from the question? The truth is you can't prove you exist. But you will no doubt provide some self justification like 'I think, therefore I am'. Proves nothing to me! Well, if you feel you don't need to prove YOU exist I have some news for ya!~ God doesn't feel He has to prove that either! Making any sense yet? If you don't WANT to know God...zzzip! There is one major difference...YOU didn't create God, He created us. Now if you created us, which I imagine may be your point, then your father must be the father of god!? Wait, that means there is someone greater than God which makes no sense. Ooops! Time to crawl back in the hole that you dug? Not challenging yourself is easy AND fun, huh? — Unsigned, by: Cyberbob9 / talk / contribs 20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You may need to consider the difference between proof and evidence. We are asking for evidence.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, you went off on a slight tangent there, but you seem to be suggesting that God doesn't care whether we believe in her existence. Then why all the Bible-thumping? -- Nx / talk 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
To address your first point, anyone asking for proof or evidence of God's existence has not already made up their mind; if they had, why would they ask? I can't prove that God doesn't exist because the idea of God is pretty much unfalsifiable, but I can tell you that there is no evidence to support said idea. How do I know that is there no evidence? Because all of the events that have occurred in the course of the history of the universe would have occurred regardless of whether God exists or not, i.e., there is nothing to suggest that God exists. This lack of evidence is the purpose of the humorous tumbleweed that dominates the article.
Now I'd like address your next point, in which you state that "you can't prove you exist." In my opinion, you answered your own question by quoting Descartes. If the phrase "I think, therefore I am" isn't proof that I exist, then I don't know what is. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. That's about the point in your post where you lost me - I can't really understand the rest of what you are talking about. Tetronian you're clueless 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think what they mean by the second point is that you can't prove to me that you exist (cogito ergo sum only proves my existence, not everyone else's, therefore everyone else can't prove to me they exist) -- Nx / talk 21:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, in that case, my answer is this: I can't give an a priori proof that I exist, but I can give you overwhelming evidence that I do. For example, if I punched you in the nose (an event would not happen if I didn't exist), that would suggest that there is a very high probability that I exist. Tetronian you're clueless 21:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
But it could still be just a (very vivid) dream. -- Nx / talk 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
True, but the problem with that hypothesis is that it is unfalsifiable. As such, you don't really have any evidence to support it. Also, as far as the original poster was concerned, that hypothesis would exclude the existence of God. Tetronian you're clueless 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to evidence for the existence of individuals, one line of evidence is the effect that we have on the world. For instance when I type these keys words appear on the screen. These words on the screen are also the only evidence that any reader of this wiki has for my existence. It would be interesting to learn if the poster regards these words as evidence for the existence of the people who are responding to him.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
None of that made sense, since you wrote it in Arabic. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try google translate in that case.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit notice?[edit]

I don't see one. Is that because I'm a 'sop or something? PS, I like the edit notice on this talk page. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The one on the article is only visible for view source. -- Nx / talk 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
IE, for IPs and noobs? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. If you log out and "view source" you see it. I really like it, actually, a very good thing to have up on things that grab a lot of attention. Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee anyone think we should protect this, or at least "semi-protect" it? Random IPs are having fun mucking it up. OK, I disagree with my own suggestion, ain't RW awesome? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wherein we get utterly schooled by some random IP user[edit]

gravity, it makes things fall, tumbleweeds go across the planes due to wind. What made gravity did it evolve from the rocks? not it is what was always there to keep the rocks (and other crap you say we came from) stuck on earth in order to "evolve". Did wind evolve from monkeys? No it was always there, and it helped shape your evolution theory. Evolution is a theory based on having nothing being infinite, that there was a starting point, but it also says that nothing can come from nothing. If that doesn't show that it is a hoax, i don't know what is. God is what is, what was, and what all ways will be. He is the essence of the wind, he is the essence of gravity.

the funniest thing i have found about evolution is two things.

1. In origin of species, there is a quote no one ever talks about, where Darwin actually says that yeah we evolved from monkeys, but there was some higher being that put the world here, and also was there seeing us through the evolution process.

2. On his death bed, Darwin admitted that, though he tried he couldn't find his theories backed up in science. He admitted it to be a hoax.

SO yeah, the creator of evolution said it wasn't valid, or plausible.

There, real proof.

Not anymore of that circular reasoning crap about marshmallows or gravity on gravity or some other crap.

The basic proof of God, and that evolution is a hoax is in infinite. Any scientist, or mathematician deals with infinite on a regular basis. For instance we are told that 1/3 is equal to .333333...., or that PI is a fractional number that will never have a repeating sequence or come to a close.

This goes against evolution, saying it will go forever. By saying something can go for forever implies something always was from the past, or negative infinity. You want to prove evolution? Find the end of PI, by the way a couple of super computers just recently found the sixth tetillionth digit of PI, so good freaking luck.

God Bless

-Andrew — Unsigned, by: 66.68.142.16 / talk / contribs

Andrew, would you like to join me in some heavy petting? Acei9 05:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, can I quote you on that? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Except, Darwin did not "recant" on his death bed. That is a made up story with no basis in reality. The fact that you are here espousing it as true, with nothing to back it up and clear evidence that you have not researched it kinda explains why you have your whole belief system. Accept whatever you hear, with out verifying its truth or falsehood, then go and tell the whole world about it. tmtoulouse 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the cretinists getting stupider, or am I just getting more used to their inanity? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Nah they have always been quick to swallow any half baked thing they heard, except if it comes from a scientist or something. The Darwin death bed PRATT has been around forever. It is interesting to see it work on the theist mind set, not based on what I said above in believing things with no desire to check if they have any veracity. But also the implicit claim that if the "founder" of the "idea" thinks there is some problem it must be true/wrong. This whole idea that the "founder" has authority over the validity of the idea and not whether or not the idea is backed by evidence. tmtoulouse 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that "founder"/"book" thing has been very interesting to get used to. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In probably the first time in my life that I will use "Answers in Genesis" to prove something I think we should point out that not even they believe the death-bed-Darwin one.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
But if rationalists came from idiots, why are there still idiots? Huh? Huh? - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
First issue. REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The artument from illogicality[edit]

From the list 'The Things I Will Do if I Am Ever the Hero':

'If I find myself born or drafted into a universe wherein the laws of nature do not obey consistent principles, I will depart for an alternate universe created by a more reasonable author.'

Even if God operates according to a different rationality to the inhabitants of the universe he/she/it/multiple gender pronoun/other has created, why confuse them rather than provide them with a challenge (there is more fun in watching them 'not spotting the #### obvious') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible rename[edit]

As we already have Scientific evidence for God's existence, should we renamed this to just Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax? ThunderkatzHo! 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. To be honest, the "God" bit always bugged me on this thing anyway as, frankly, the 'God Hypothesis' doesn't necessarily say that it requires scientific evidence. To say that it would, in principle, be able to be shown scientifically is a straw man. This is an escape hatch, undoubtedly, but that's a different point. Anyway, we shouldn't muddle God and evolution like that, it's just plain irresponsible. Scarlet A.pngmoral 21:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Real science has a self imposed priori that limits itself to the natural world. That priori would necessarily put anything supernatural (beings or events) outside of the realm of science. Until the late 1990's the science of aerodynamics conclusively proved the bumble bee could not fly, despite the weight of the evidence bumble bee's all over the world defied the science of aerodynamics for nearly a century until science figured out the actual mechanism by which the bumble bee flew. Was the flight of the bumble been supernatural throughout most of history because science has not figured out how if flew, or was scientific understanding just that limited? — Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
1) You have a very strange definition for the word "prove".
2) That really doesn't have anything to do with whether the word "God" is in this article's title.
3) Please type ~~~~ after your posts.
~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WEB[edit]

This is shooting up on Twitter & facebook. --Scream!! (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Eugenie Scott just shared it. I assume it's doing the rounds again. Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Inflammatory Title[edit]

The title of this article is inflammatory. The word 'hoax' implies an attempt to deceive.

Can I suggest that there is no attempt at deception in the claims for evolution.

If anything, it is an attempt to enlighten by someone who believes what they say is true.

Aren't the opponents of evolution doing exactly the same thing?— Unsigned, by: 123.243.38.159 / talk / contribs

You have misunderstood. We are saying that it is not a hoax, and that any claims that it is a hoax are wrong.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The failure to acknowledge there have been hoaxes only acts to undermine the credibility of this article and this site.[edit]

Piltown Man was exposed unquestionably to be a hoax.

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was forced to resign his 30 year post as professor of anthropology after he falsified dates on many stone aged fossils and passed off fake fossils as real fossils.

There have certainly been hoaxes, some surviving decades, as well as simple errors in judgment interpreting evidence that stood for decades before being refuted. Pretending otherwise only undermines the credibility of "RationalWiki" — Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs

I believe you are mistaking "pieces of evidence for evolution that were hoaxes" and "evidence that evolution is a hoax." There were undoubtedly faked pieces of evidence used for evolution, but because of science's self-correcting nature, these were all caught and exposed as hoaxes - and no one denies their existence. However, there is no evidence that the theory of evolution itself is a hoax, which is what this article deals with. ThunderkatzHo! 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thunderkatz has articulated perfectly what I was going to say - the article is about evolution being a hoax, not hoaxes in evolution. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
See here for the full refutation of that point. Scarlet A.pngmoral 20:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No mistake, simply a recognition that this article is based on nothing more than a logical fallacy. Specifically "Equivocation" which can be classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. The article provides no information, represents no rational argument and being based on logical fallacy actually could be considered contrary to rational thinking. It is one thing for an article to contain the odd logical fallacy, which does not necessarily alter the credibility of the article or the site, it is something entirely different for an article to be based upon a logical fallacy. One could just as easily create an article "Evidence of Harry Potter being a hoax" with would both evoke similar arguments on both sides and the same quality of rational discourse.
Warmer, warmer... no, colder... colder... freezing... keep looking for the point, I'll let you know when you're there. Scarlet A.pngmoral 20:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate Thunderkatz attempting rational discourse. I also appreciate ADK proving him/herself to be irrational! Lets see if this example makes things more clear: Evidence that the theory of a Geocentric Universe being a hoax = Two bouncing tumbleweeds.... The notion of a Geocentric universe was perfectly reasonable based upon the available evidence and there is no real indication of it being a deliberate hoax. However as more evidence become available it was proven to be wrong. While one could certainly present volumes of evidence that the theory of a Geocentric Universe is incorrect, it would be completely accurate to argue that evidence does not demonstrate the theory was a hoax (regardless of its accuracy). From this we can then state with no reservation that the absence of evidence that a theory (current or long since refuted) is a hoax, does not equate to evidence the theory is correct.— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs

Joke articles: Serious fucking business. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
BoN, there are plenty of idiots people who actually believe that the whole theory is a hoax. I'm not going to link to them, but try Googling the phrase "Evolution is a hoax" and see what you get. There are more than enough stupid people out there to give a large number of hits. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Your mistake is describing this page as an article, when in fact it's just a poorly written sentence & an animated gif. Try looking elsewhere; we do have some pages with proper wiki content which are actually worth looking at. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I can think of nothing less rational than attempting to have a rational discussion with an irrational person. Framing this article as such a response only further validates my assertion related to this article. Thanks SelectedReplicant!
You're absolutely tight, BoN. I'll stop replying to you now. And learn to read. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, you'll just find that my attitude is "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer". As it stands, you're being a moron. Scarlet A.pngmoral 00:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See also?[edit]

Perhaps (although I think the furore is already dying down) we should add a see also section to this with links 3 or 4 well-written, detailed articles? But let's do it carefully, since I suspect editing this one might create even more slowdowns? I suggest "Evidence against a recent creation" to start the process, although it's slightly off the main theme of evolution. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't subscribe to the biblical seven day creation myths, it is clear that those who hold that position are doing intellectual gymnastics to make it work. It is just disappointing that a site that presents itself as "rationalwiki" would use the same idiotic approaches as creationists. I seem to recall a creationist site more than a decade ago that presented the same type of argument however instead of bouncing tumbling weeds it was an empty box. The question that came to mind seeing this page was how can these guys expect to be seen any less irrational if they are using the same logical flaws to make their arguments? Just to make sure I was not reading the article title incorrectly and some edits were forthcoming I presented a few hoaxes. It turns out i did not read the title incorrectly, somebody was using the same logical fallacies as the creationists.— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
You have, unbelievably, continued to misunderstand the title. Chthonios (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And where is this fallacy? The word "evolution?" "Hoax?" Enlighten us. Chthonios (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


BoN - I think you have failed to see the point of this article. We are merely saying that there is no scientific evidence that evolution is a hoax. If you know of some evidence as to why evolution is a hoax, please enlighten us. (and please sign your posts so we now who we are talking to) --DamoHi 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't our idea for this article to be our face to the world this weekend. But some people apparently found it funny. Hence my suggestion for a few 'see alsos' to articles with more meat, of which we have many, many, many. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the title. What has not yet been explained to me is what an article that is so obviously nothing more than a logical fallacy is dong on a site that represents itself as rational? Where I come from part of rational thinking is having to ability to see through logical fallacies and evaluate things based on the facts. Responding with insults and semantics while ignoring the logical fallacy being pointed out only demonstrates a lack of rational thinking!— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs

What fallacy? Can you, as I asked, enlighten us? Chthonios (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have already done so, read the thread entitled "The failure to acknowledge there have been hoaxes only acts to undermine the credibility of this article and this site."— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
No you haven't. You said the article is based on equivocation - in no way did you explain how. Chthonios (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And have you read thunderkatz reply, which indicates the misunderstanding you seem to be having? In any case, if you think there is scientific evidence for evolution being a hoax then lets hear it. DamoHi 05:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Damo, I understand the title, I am asserting that it is not logical or rational - After reading some earlier posts it is clear the article is intended to be a joke... not very funny but I do tend to have a dry sense of humor.— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs

Back on topic (which was hijacked by a moron). What think ye of some good "see alsos" for this article to spread the wealth? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. It'd explain the joke a bit for incoming BoNs, and your Obamunist rhetoric seals the deal. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Who cares?[edit]

What does it change? Why does anyone need to know? Will knowing affect the outcomes of anything? — Unsigned, by: 184.59.18.114 / talk / contribs

300,000 people care. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
300,000 people since when? Forever or last week or what? --DamoHi 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe very many people have ever changed their position because of the evolution/creation debate. I also do not believe either position makes much difference in the real world. Selective breeding of both animals and plants has been around at least since the Roman times and giving the process a name has not changed the process or the results. The fact a small but loud group of fundamentalist nitwits like to cling to some ancient mythology for origins makes no difference in the real world. The only area of concern that I can see is in the area of education. Critical thinking and rational evaluation of information are important skills that apparently are suffering because of the debate. Seeing some of the responses here, it would appear those on both sides of the issue suffer the same problems in this respect.— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
Those creationist nitwits are affecting how science is taught in the world's largest nuclear superpower, and they keep getting close to putting one of their own in the seat with the "football". It matters, a lot. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
How can you argue that education "makes no difference in the real world?" Chthonios (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Chthonios - Please show me where the word education appears in this sentence: "The fact a small but loud group of fundamentalist nitwits like to cling to some ancient mythology for origins makes no difference in the real world. " It does not! Never made that argument so your question does not make much sense!— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
In the very next sentence of your post you say "the only concern I can see is in the area of education." After saying that the fundies "make no difference in the real world." So either you don't think education is important to the "real world" or you yourself are guilty of equivocation. Chthonios (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Chthonios Perhaps you should attempt to read the paragraph in context. I am not convinced that the belief in Evolution makes any difference in the real world. I am not convinced that the belief in creation makes any difference in the real world. I stated the only concern I could see (theoretically) is that the evolution/creation debate could have an affect on eduction, but in my next sentence <addition> I stated why this could be a concern <end addition> Then I argued that that concern was without foundation because the responses from both those that believe in evolution and those that believe in creation are equally lacking in critical thinking and the ability to perform a rational evaluation.— Unsigned, by: 99.72.28.196 / talk / contribs
Right. Chthonios (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think evolution is false[edit]

Off-topic discussion moved to the relevant essay talkpage. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to move it back because I don't want to start a silly edit war over it, but as I argue there, I don't agree with your labelling this discussion as 'off-topic'. I think it is very on-topic. --(((Zack Martin))) 08:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an article talk page, for discussion of this page. Your essay has its own talk page for discussion of that page. See how it works? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
My essay is relevant to the topic of this page, so it seemed reasonable to draw attention to my essay here. Of course substantive discussion of my essay belongs on its talk page rather than this page. --(((Zack Martin))) 07:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What I like about this place[edit]

This article got so many hits it ground the site to a halt for three days. Cool. But here's what I like: as far as I can tell, no one screamed "vandal magnet" or "semi-protect it" or "lock it up!". I like that about us. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was quite positive. After all we want people to come here and debate.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you add an audio auto-play of crickets chirping?— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]

For the record, that used by be there, until the first slashdot on this page brought the hosting site for the file down. ADK...I'll bust your centrifuge! 06:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that was a different page with similar content... ħumanUser talk:Human 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Different title but technically the same article as we renamed it to remove the "and God's existence" because, frankly, that was a stupid and irrelevant addition. That big crash was when it was posted to the "I bet we can find 1 million people who believe in evolution" Facebook group. ADK...I'll regurgitate your Pontiac! 13:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Straw Man[edit]

The problem with this "article" is that it is pointless. "Evolution is a hoax" is a far cry from "Evolution is not". Who argues that it is a hoax? Tricksy (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

creationists.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy. Nutty Rouxnever mind 04:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)