Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T17:36:16Z

Airdish: /* This will probably earn me a ban */

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T16:41:15Z

Airdish: /* Blocking of NousEpirrhytos */

Rush Limbaugh

2007-04-10T16:07:36Z

Airdish: Tidying up entry - "biting conservative satire" is either laughing at him or with him - i can't figure out and either way shouldn't be here.

'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a [[conservative]] [[United States of America|American]] radio talk show host.
[[Image:Limbaugh.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]

== Radio ==

Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denounciations of anything [[liberal]]. He is often at odds with [[liberal]] activist [[Al Franken]]<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. He habitually refers to [[feminists]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as "talent on loan from God".

Limbaugh's style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the [[Republican Party]]'s 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.
Rush's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 13.5 million listeners weekly, making Rush the '#1 Radio Talk Show Host'.<ref>
[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online</ref>

== Other Media Work ==

The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

== Alleged Nobel Nomination ==

In 2007, Mark R. Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a press release giving the text of a letter from the Foundation to the Chairman of the Nobel Institute. The letter "submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize" for his "tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all mankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin."<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE Landmark Legal Foundation Nominates Rush Limbaugh for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize"</ref>. Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize is by invitation only, and the names of the nominees and their nominations are kept secret for fifty years.<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize], Nobel Foundation. The position of the Nobel Foundation, with regard to all [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html rumored nominations], is "Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out."</ref>
==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
[[Category:Biographies]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2007-04-10T09:35:04Z

Airdish: /* This isn't Wikipedia */

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Soccer

2007-04-10T09:22:26Z

Airdish:

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Soccer

2007-04-10T09:17:05Z

Airdish:

Soccer is the term used in North America to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in England as slang for "Association Football" <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London''</ref> (a similar construction can be seen in referring to rugby as "rugger")

Soccer is a ball game played between two teams of 11 players (10 outfield players and one goalkeeper each) over two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time.

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120m in length and 45m-90m in width<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is kicked or headed into the opposition net.

The aim of soccer is to score more goals than your opponent.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-03T22:38:44Z

Airdish: /* is the watch analogy useful or misleading? */

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-03T20:50:51Z

Airdish: /* is the watch analogy useful or misleading? */

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-03T20:34:16Z

Airdish: /* is the watch analogy useful or misleading? */

Southpark

2007-04-03T16:59:37Z

Airdish: Redirecting to South Park

#redirect [[South Park]]

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-31T01:33:10Z

Airdish: /* Newton */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-31T01:08:54Z

Airdish: /* Newton */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T21:54:06Z

Airdish: /* Theory of Relativity/draft */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T21:04:17Z

Airdish: /* Theory of Relativity/draft */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Three things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-28T22:34:46Z

Airdish: /* Diversity of Thought */

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to Christianity) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular.

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T22:14:04Z

Airdish: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJV) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]
So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Know one's seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I bet he's real too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, I'm praying for you. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

lol [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Smug alert?[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 18:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suspect more man-crushes on Duns are on the way. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is hard not to be very respectful of Duns. I don't know that man crushes are what he'd want, he is very against the homosexual agenda. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

: But you did say that Jesus spoke English [[User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#evidence_for_Agent_Provocateur_status]] [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That might have been poorly phrased. I believe I had been combating attempts to smear the KJV and Biblical Inerrancy in general, and my enumeration of Tmtoulouse's sins might have included an attempt to recognize this damage. However, I was not attempting to insinuate that Jesus spoke English, just that His translation (in the KJV), was Perfect and Inerrant. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T22:08:58Z

Airdish: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Airdish, between God-fearing men, much can be forgiven. I have been here for a while, and have never been anything other than painfully exact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, I translated it wrong, nm. Anyways, I still think you're a parody. And it is pretty funny.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ames, your secularist suspicions add nothing to your credit. Verily, skeptics can serve a purpose, but only a narrow one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::An anagram of your name is "Scuds To Us," which gave me pause. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin', only a secularist with the attention span of a gnat would somehow read SCUDS into the name of the first (and second only to Thomas Aquinas) scholastic scholar. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The father of nominalism one good friar [[User:BenjaminW|BenjaminW]] 17:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I still think you're a parody. You can't possibly believe all the stuff you write.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Ames, don't foist the poverty of your imagination upon me. In God, all things are possible. All desires known. And no secrets are hid. That's the world in which we should live, not this fallen and destitute one. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sue Me :) My name's anagram is "Jonah's Angoras". I'm a big old nerd who loves JESUS. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Flippin that was not very nice. Do not take the Lord's name in vain! [User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]
So how do you explain the defense of Nessie as a modern dinosaur, and "Jesus spoke English," unless you're a parody? Again, funny stuff.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, if your desire is to be expunged from Conservapedia with the rest of your liberal agitators, that's fine, but don't trammel my work. To my knowledge, nobody has seen Nessie, and so it is formally possible she could be a dinosaur, that survived the Flood and the subsequent post-flood dislocations. Moreover, that's a good deal more possible given the Biblical Time Scale. I never said that Jesus spoke English, just that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and truly doing His work. I'm not sure what the rest of your critiques mean, but you're obviously a hostile secularist, and largely without merit. I've observed your materialist attempts to champion evolution, and that's actively hostile to the will of the Lord. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Know one's seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. I bet he's real too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

lol [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Smug alert?[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 18:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suspect more man-crushes on Duns are on the way. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It is hard not to be very respectful of Duns. I don't know that man crushes are what he'd want, he is very against the homosexual agenda. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

: But you did say that Jesus spoke English [[User_talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1#evidence_for_Agent_Provocateur_status]] [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:PKBear

2007-03-28T21:56:29Z

Airdish:

Hi, I hope you're having fun.
Just a note to ask you if you could remember to "sign" you posts with either four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or the handy-dandy sign button above to the right of the slashed "W". Thanks --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Valid points maybe, but sign your comments if you believe them. it helps make it seem like '''you'' believe them, which is the first step to getting others to believe (in my opinion). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

see? ;-) [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:PKBear

2007-03-28T21:56:13Z

Airdish:

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:45:44Z

Airdish: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Me too...loved it though.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I never said Jesus spoke English, but the English of the KJB is the best English that Jesus could have spoken, and the translators of that august text were truly guided by God. I'm hardly parodic, just a true believer, looking to see that justice is done. AmesG, you're a known anti-truth agitator, but I expect more from you, Airdish. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, I just quick-translated (from what I remember, I really need a refresher) your Latin userpage :-)-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but I just have my suspicion radar on full-effect when I'm here. It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DunsScotus

2007-03-28T21:39:40Z

Airdish: /* You're a parody, right? */

I hope you can provide a good citation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-Diluvian_Diasporas&diff=57626&oldid=57611 this] claim. Otherwise, it will get removed pretty quickly. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transport of animal and plant species by large scale weather phenomena is well established. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::If so, then it should be easy for you to find a citation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::already did [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Squid and such like. ==

"Interesting" edits Duns, but I rather suspect that you may be over-egging it. I don't get the impression that leg-pulling is taken to lightly here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:British_cons, as church father [[Martin Luther]] once said, "here I stand, I can do no other!" I am not going to be browbeat or intimidated into recanting my conservative principles. Again, as national father and influential conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] once said, "extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice." I support God and Country, and that's all I need to know.
::Yes, I see. It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal: Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Easy answer, Cons. Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality. Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I would have expected no less than you would be to the right of Atilla the Hun. errrr literally.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Cons, how can you embrace figures like [[Margaret Thatcher]] when you express such a dislike for muscular conservatism? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::While many people did indeed make unfortunate comparisons between Margret thatcher and other, more militant, historical I never saw them. There is a clear difference between British Conservatism and, for example, militarism.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm glad, Cons, because Ms. Thatcher hardly treated the Falklands as Ghenghis did the Uzbekistani steppes. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr. No, she didn't. Do you feel that was an error?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::A certain degree of rigor should be expected in dealings with other nation states, but Ms. Thatcher was simply acting to restore British territory to the crown, and as such, did not need to overreact. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Right. Got the smiting about right then?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the Holy Ghost Jesus's sensitive friend? Is the Trinity One?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On PalmD001's Man-Crush on Me ==

You can decide whether that is good or bad. Your submissions are interesting enough that I don't want to miss anything, espicially the subtext, but maybe I'm crazy. Whom gods would destroy (oops, God)...[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 15:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also watching him. Too many people on this site don't seem to take it seriously, although Duns is not afraid to speak the truth and present the facts which we can all see in the Bible. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]] 15:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he is always consistent. Im just not sure whether it is Emersonian consistency, or something perhaps a little more complex. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent...fiat lux, and keep it coming.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...a tangled web indeed...Im enjoying this more than I'd even hoped. Follow that rainbow, hermano.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you a homosexual, Palmd001, and if then, shouldn't that be hermani? If so, I'd be uncomfortable if you were posting on my talk page. I prefer to associate with clean living Christians, not debauched secularists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, my friend, if I were a Sodomite you wouldn't be my type. I'm not checking out your butt.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Then why are you watching me, Pald001? [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::And while I am not an expert in bigotry, I am an expert in Spanish. "Hermano" is Spanish for "Brother" regardless of the sexual proclivities of the speaker. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, thanks for the useful Spanish lesson. Much appreciated. Unlike our Lord, I'm not one for speaking in tongues.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Myk, perhaps the reason you're such a spanish expert is that you're really a Moor or perhaps a terrorist from [basque_country]. [[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]]

Please play nice, Duns is one of the most interesting folks here. Or at least, the smartest. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:touchedbyabear|touchedbyabear]], such ad hominem attacks have no place in discussion. Anyone with a little Spanish knowledge would know that hermaño is Spanish for brother regardless. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You're right [[User:ColinR|ColinR]], I'm sorry. I actually don't know any Spanish, I really only know American and a few phrases here and there.

:::No problem, and if your comment was made in jest, which I'm assuming it probably was, just add something at the end to clarify it as such, such as a smiley. And I apologize for my Spanish comment, in retrospect, it was too harsh and unnecessary. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate you creating a separate thread for me, although it's not really a man-crush, any more than you have a man-crush on Jesus. It is just a respect for my intellectual equal/superior.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== On the Punishment of the Damned ==

The Lord already watches everything I do, Palmd001, I have nothing to answer for that I will not be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. Look to your own house, Palmd001, if you think your secularist medical degree will have any pull with The Lord, our God. TouchedbyaBear, thank you for your support. It is important that true believers stick together, and together, we will laugh at the sinners in their lake of fire. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Laughing at sinners in their lake of fire seems like a pretty horrible view for a Christian to take. I thought Jesus taught to love everyone, and if you loved everyone, you should feel sorry for those burning in hell not jubilation. Then again, what do I know? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, no less a church father as [[Tertulian]] explains that the the saved will delight in the torment of the damned. Besides, if you were a good Christian, you'd know that the damned no longer have any chance of salvation, having thrown away the precious gift of God's sacrifice for them.

:::"However there are other spectacles--that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I will be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And those wise philosophers who earlier convinced their disciples that God was irrelevant and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies will be ashamed as they burn in the conflagration with those very disciples. And the poets will be there, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate! Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. `This is the man,' I will say, `the son of a workman or a prostitute, the destroyer of the sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you brought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuces.' What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you the sight of such things or the exultation in them? And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Like I said, what do I know? I guess all the times I was told about Christianity being a religion of peace and love, they really meant reveling in the suffering of others. And as for the damned, I thought that Puritan idea died out long ago, otherwise what good is God's forgiveness? Unless you are referring to the damned as those who blasphemed, the only unforgivable sin in the Bible. Regardless, delighting in suffering of others still seems so contrary to everything Jesus ever said. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::ColinR, you are absolutely right that Jesus said to be sympathetic and understanding towards ''sinners,'' but [[Tertulian]] is discussing the attitude of the believers towards the ''damned,'' so activities of this sort will only occur after the Last Judgment, when the Lord sorts the quick and the dead, and separates everyone for eternal reward or eternal punishment. You are correct, though, until then, we must be supportive (though firm) of our wayward brethren so they may join in our enjoyable condemnation of the damned in the last days. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't forget the marshmallows.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Palmd001, there's no evidence that marshmallows or buffalo wings or other worldly foodstuffs will be available in heaven. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since I won't be there it won't matter much, but I really do feel bad for you guys.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll pray for you in the hopes that you'll change your mind, Palmd001. Nobody who accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will be consigned to hell. You can save yourself at any time.[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you blaspheme. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Damn that blasphemy clause.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:One can save oneself? Hmmm, I'll bet that's news to the godhead. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Cracker, you seem to have an offensive nickname. Furthermore, one can save oneself by recourse to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. At every moment in time, you can be Saved, provided you trust in Him and his Mercy. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet again, unless you blasphemed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To my knowledge, ColinR, the unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the holy ghost in particular, not the trinity as a whole or the other two component parts thereof. [http://www.tgm.org/Blasphemy.htm] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar ==

DunsScotus, I'm not sure if conservapedia has the notion of barnstars, but if they do you should get one. I'm a new user to this site but I was watching what you had to say all day and it was all very well thought out and very thought provoking. The fact of the matter is that while it has been said that on a macro scale those with conservative views in America are both less educated and generally have lower IQs that you are a fine example to the contrary. [[GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== Dinosaurs and the flood ==

Duns, I followed several of your posts on the [[Great_Flood]] and [[Post-Diluvian_Diasporas]] with great interest. What do you think of this article [http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/03/24/1854212.shtml] which posits that some dinosaurs made underground dens. While these evolutionarist liberals speculate that it could have been used to avoid mass extinction events, I was considering the possibility that some dinosaurs might have done this to avoid God's wrath and the flood. Perhaps this would explain phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster or Champ in Lake Champlain. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]]

== You're a parody, right? ==

You're parodying conservative viewpoints by taking them to their logical extreme, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment about Jesus speaking English (cos it says so in the KJB) did it for me. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Shellfish

2007-03-28T19:04:20Z

Airdish: reverted back to category:abominations

Shellfish is a culinary term for aquatic invertebrates used as food: molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Both saltwater and freshwater invertebrates are considered shellfish. Many gentile societies have eaten shellfish as a staple diet for thousands of years.

== Biblical Views on Shellfish ==

Shellfish is referred to only twice in the Bible; it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and there are no references in the New Testament or in the letters of Paul. Jews, and some Christians, do not eat shellfish because of the Old Testament prohibition against it. <ref>http://www.kyrieology.com/drupal/wwje/christiansgokosher</ref><ref>http://www.abcog.org/food.htm</ref>

All references in Amplified Version

=== Old Testament ===

* Leviticus 11:9-12 - 9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, these you may eat; 10 But all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all the creeping things in the waters, and of all the living creatures which are in the waters, they are [to be considered] an abomination and abhorrence to you. 11 They shall continue to be an abomination to you; you shall not eat of their flesh, but you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that has not fins or scales shall be abhorrent and detestable to you.

* Deuteronomy 14:9-10 - 9 These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales you may eat, 10 And whatever has not fins and scales you may not eat; it is unclean for you.

==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category: Abominations]]

Electronica

2007-03-26T18:24:00Z

Airdish: beginning electronica page

Electronica is an umbrella term for a wide range of musical styles which are either composed or manipulated using digital technology. The myriad sub-genres range from minimalist [[ambient]] soundscapes to fast, distorted, percussion-dependent compositions.

Talk:Planet

2007-03-26T18:10:03Z

Airdish:

It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other.) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a subtle difference between the definition for a planet in our solar system or one orbiting a star other than the sun. The rationale for giving a "loose definition" was to avoid getting lost in minutiae. Changing to "is" is fine until a proper article is done. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Planet

2007-03-26T18:02:38Z

Airdish:

Planet

2007-03-26T17:54:54Z

Airdish: starting up the planet page

A planet can quickly be defined: As a body which orbits a [[star]]; is in [[hydrostatic]] [[equilibrium]] under it's own mass; and dominates the region of space in which it moves (i.e. the [[gravity]] and rotation of the object have caused it to assume a roughly spherical shape and the region of it's orbit is generally free from other forms of astronomical matter)<ref>http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html</ref>.

== References ==

<references/>

Gravitation

2007-03-24T21:37:10Z

Airdish: created a new section for Gravity and GR; elucidated on the "fundamental theory" bit.

'''Gravitation''' is a phenomenon which attracts all objects within the universe to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics, it is explained by the general theory of relativity. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is still useful in most situations.

Everything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass. How much depends on the size of the masses and the distance between them. For normal objects, this pull is minute, but you can measure the pull between a very large object like the [[Earth]] and another object like you by standing on the scales. Your weight is the measure of the pull of gravity between you and the planet you are standing on. This force depends on your mass and the mass of that planet, but it also depends on your distance from the center of the planet. The further you are from the planet's center, the weaker the pull between it and your body. If you double your distance, the force is one quarter. At ten times the distance, the force is one hundredth. It drops off with the square of the distance. This is called the [[Inverse Square Law.]] <ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html</ref>The force never becomes zero, no matter how far you travel.

Astronauts in the [[space shuttle]] appear to be weightless because they are in a container which is falling. The reason the space shuttle doesn't fall to earth is that it is moving very fast sideways at the same time as it is falling, so it falls in a curve. Its speed makes its curved path the same as the Earth’s curve, so it never comes down but stays in orbit, in free fall.

Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[Earth]] and [[Sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

==Gravity and Modern Physics==

The [[Theory of Gravity]] was one of the earliest triumphs of modern [[physics]]. It now stands as both one of the most successful and most mysterious areas of that field. On one hand, the [[Theory_of_Relativity|General theory of Relativity]] is one of the most successful [[Scientific_Theory|scientific theories]] to date. On the other hand, how General Relativity can be reconciled with [[Quantum_mechanics|quantum physics]] remains an open question, and is one of the hotly contested areas of modern physics. Since the late 1970s [[string theory]] and it's [[supersymmetry:supersymmetric]] relative [[superstring theory]] are the theories which the majority of physicists see as the most likely paths to unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces).

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Slavery

2007-03-24T16:06:28Z

Airdish: Undo revision 62676 by Special:Contributions/RobS+ (User talk:RobS+)

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves, however later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. Some English translations use the term 'slave' while others use 'servant,' but the meanings are equivalent. For example:

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. Though physical violence to slaves is permitted, murder is not.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Soccer

2007-03-24T10:25:19Z

Airdish:

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

Soccer is a ball game played between two teams of 11 players (10 outfield players and one goalkeeper each) over two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time.

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90[[meter|m]]-120m in length and 45m-90m in width<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is kicked or headed into the opposition net.

The aim of soccer is to score more goals than your opponent.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sports]]

{{stub}}

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-24T09:52:21Z

Airdish: /* Arguments for Slavery */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Arguments for Slavery==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-24T09:51:14Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Talk:Bisexuality

2007-03-23T18:41:05Z

Airdish:

== Origins? ==

Do we need an entry on the origins of this? If we do not need an entry on the "origins" of [[homosexuality]], then why bisexuality? [[user:airdish|airdish]] 20:20, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

:Important to consider the cultural etiolation of these behaviors in promoting sexual immorality and sexual license. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::But that's not what "Origins" implies and that's not what the article is about. Origins implies that this is where bisexuality started. Bisexuality is not something that just starts, I mean, someone didn't invent bisexuality. I agree that a section on historical examples of bisexuality is appropriate, and maybe even there is justification for describing how this affected Greek culture, example. But "origins"?, no. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Where are the citations for the first section 'The Bible on Bisexuality'? How can this site claim to be an encyclopaedia of any worth if it does not cite it's sources?

*DunsScotus, would you please remove the section on sexual immorality in young women. It's in appropriate and little more than a rant. Whatever you think of "Joe Francis" and "Girls Gone Wild", it has no place being here. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T18:19:29Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T12:05:38Z

Airdish:

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T11:33:32Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-23T00:26:03Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

History of rugby

2007-03-22T23:45:38Z

Airdish:

Rugby is a ball game played by 13 (Rugby League) or 15 (Rugby Union) players over two halves of 40 minutes.

[[American Football]] derives from rugby, which itself evolved out of many ancient and prehistoric ball games.

American Football

2007-03-22T23:45:21Z

Airdish: Redirecting to Football

#REDIRECT [[Football]]

History of rugby

2007-03-22T23:36:57Z

Airdish:

Rugby is a ball game played by 13 (Rugby League) or 15 (Rugby Union) players over two halves of 40 minutes.

History of rugby

2007-03-22T23:36:42Z

Airdish:

Rugby is a ball game played by 13 (Rugby league) or 15 (Rugby Union) players over two halves of 40 minutes.

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-22T23:10:33Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-22T22:04:30Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Soccer

2007-03-22T22:03:07Z

Airdish:

Soccer is the term used in North America to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in England as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to impose itself on the North American sporting lexicon.

Soccer is a ball game played between two teams of 11 players (10 outfield players and one goalkeeper each) over two 45 minute halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time.

The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90m-120m in length and 45m-90m in width.

A goal is scored when the (spherical) ball is kicked or headed into the opposition net.

The aim of soccer is to score more goals than your opponent.

[[Category:Sports]]

{{stub}}

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-22T21:44:44Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

2007-03-22T21:32:50Z

Airdish: creating basic descriptor of the uncertainty principle

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental states that for any given quantum particle with position <math>x</math> and momentum <math>p</math>, then the product of the standard deviations of the measurements of <math>x</math> and <math>p</math> must be of the order of [[Planck's constant]] (<math>\hbar</math>), which is a non-zero, positive-valued, real number.

Mathematically it is represented with this equation: <math>\left(\Delta x \Delta p\geq\frac{\hbar}{2}\right)</math>.

In English, this means - for example - that if we measure the position of the particle perfectly then there ''has'' to be a non-zero error in our measurement of momentum (and similarly the reverse) and so we can ''never'' know the exact position and momentum of a particle at any instant.

Werner Heisenberg

2007-03-22T21:18:28Z

Airdish:

Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) was a German physicist most credited with the discovery of [[quantum mechanics]], in 1925. Heisenberg proposed that it is impossible to assign to an electron a position in space at a given time or follow it precisely in its orbit. Heisenberg thereby challenged the model of subatomic particles that was based on planetary obrits. Instead, Heisenberg suggested that mechanical quantities like position and velocity are better represented, not by ordinary commutative numbers, but by non-commutative mathematical objects called [[matrices]].

Heisenberg formulated a famous principle that now bears his name: The [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]]. This principle states that the determination of the position and momentum of a mobile particle always contains errors which, when multiplied, cannot be less than the quantum constant h. These errors are negligible in ordinary life but significant in the study of subatomic particles.

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-22T20:15:35Z

Airdish: /* Recent Removal of Bible passages */

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-22T10:48:31Z

Airdish: Recent Removal of Bible passages

Talk:String theory

2007-03-21T20:37:26Z

Airdish: /* Completeness and Computability */

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Slavery

2007-03-21T14:10:07Z

Airdish: removed implication of support for slavery, be it serious or an attempt to discredit site.

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when liberals such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the supposed "evils" of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the socialist-influenced Northern government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

The Germans used forced labor during World War II, particularly Jews, Russians and Slavs. During this time Japan also made use of such labor. While often called "slave" labor, forced laborers in National Socialist countries did not enjoy the privileges such as housing, health care, and free food that slaves in the United States and other free countries did.

Slavery in the United States was replaced post-[[1865]] with a system of socialized affirmative action preventing many people from reaching their potential in society as places in the job and education markets are given as handouts to unqualified candidates. Meanwhile, since slavery was regulated out of existence in the United States, the average quality of life of blacks relative to that of whites has declined. As a constitutional amendment forbids slavery, the working man in the United States, the freedom of every man to sell his own skills at a price he feels fair is legally impossible.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible, for example:

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* Exodus 21:7 states that a man may sell his daughter into slavery.

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul returning a slave to his owner.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]