Talk:Ask Darwinists

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver


I will one day learn to utilise the english language as it was intended to be... ArmondikoVbomination 08:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Now write it out 100 times. :) 08:26, 11 December 2008 (EST) Totnesmartin


WHOO! It turns out this page is fairly high up the google rankings for "ask darwinists". It's actually 4th, just below the official Harun Yahya ones (2nd if you count the "download pages" as the same as the original). Just thought I'd point this out and see if it's worth adding this to Entry Points and working it up to be near perfect. ArmondikoVbomination 11:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

"Entry points" isn't generated so much by, say, high google rankings, so much as by Trent observing people coming directly to an article a lot in the logs. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Having worked my way through the whole article, reading and doing some minor copyediting, it's a pretty good one. It should get more in-links... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a "creationism articles on RW" navbox, at least? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it. But it could be useful, especially as some of them have long titles like "Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Young Earth Creationism". Scarlet A.pngd hominem 22:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't the answer be "yes"? Sure, it could be by's not...but the probability is non-zero. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that partially depends on if the universe is/will be old enough? I changed it to "probably not". ħumanUser talk:Human 21:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AHA  ! you failed on question one :([edit]

I believe the answer they are looking for , is something like the crocoduck. Since it does not exist you have failed to provide a true transitional fossil. Thanks for playing, better luck with question 2 Hamster (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

question 3 YES see harun Yahyas big picture book of creation (not its real title) which has pictures of fossils and their living examples which HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL, they exactly the same (if you dont look too closely)

the answer to all these questions is to bow toward mecca and recite Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet , three times is plenty , kneel on a little rug is ok. Hamster (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


The video linked there is incredible. It's a shame, though, that utube comments/threads are so hard to follow. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Clocks? Yeah, that is pretty awesome. Thunderf00t has a similar one that shows evolutionary algorithms in process but uses cute, Spore-like creatures instead. But Clocks is interesting because punctuated equilibrium seems to just fall out of the code from nowhere. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 09:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
That was part of what I thought was awesome, in this simulation. The change from varying types of clocks was what we would call "geologically instantaneous", which is why so-called "transitional fossils" are so rare. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Side by Side?[edit]

For the sake of consitency with our other similar articles shouldn't this be a side by side? Acei9 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the questions are short, the answers are long. SBS would look horrible. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 09:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Consistency is a liberal trait also. Perhaps you are right. Acei9 09:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, good idea, bad idea, everyone kiss fellate now. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)