Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T07:35:23Z

Ashens: /* Warning */

== Fred Phelps ==

It is not "liberal bias" to say that Phelps is known for his anti-homosexual viewpoints. That's what he's known for. And, by the way, I'm from Kansas, where he's from, and he isn't known as a pro-family leader. Even the most pro-family conservative politicans around here hate him. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You sound like a moonbat from the late 90's. Why do you think Bush called it the "Defence of Marriage" amendment? Because he was defending a sacred instituion, not attacking homosexuals (no matter what the liberal MSM might say)! Why do you think they call it "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays"? Because Dr. Dobson is pro-family, not anti-homosexual! Why do you think they call it the "Family Research Council"? Because they're pro-family, not anti-homosexual. The fact of the matter is that it's called pro-family, and the only people who disagree are pro-homosexual liberals who are unfairly trying to paint conservatives as hateful, stupid, evil bigots.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suggest you keep reverting the page till they see it your way.

:::Besides, none of the people you mentioned ''condemned'' homosexuality, but promoted marriage. Phelps makes it quite clear that he wishes it upon all who do not agree with him to burn in hell. How is that not hate? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because it's the WORD OF GOD!! God loves everyone. If He hates sin, it's because sin is evil.

::::I don't want to just get into an edit war, because that's useless. Any facts that I insert for the conservative view will just be deleted if we can't agree.

::::For goodness' sake, this is supposed to be a CONSERVAPEDIA, not a wikipedia clone, with all of wikipedia's biases. If it were up to people like you, we'd probably have a pro-evolution page right now!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Phelps is a Democrat, like you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Keep your insults to yourself. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Conservapedia is a far cry from "supporting hate-mongers with nonfactual information"apedia. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Just like a liberal to call anyone who has Truth to be a "hate-monger". How long until you liberals outlaw the Bible as hatespeech? It's already taken place in Canada. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's a disgrace to Conservatives to consider Phelps as "Pro-Family". He has ''never'' preached a pro-family message, only "march to my beat, hate gays, catholics, and swedes". There was somebody else like that, his name was [[Hitler]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nice ad-hominem. Remember, Hitler liked dogs. Does that make any dog-owner a Nazi? You liberals need to go to www.littlegreenfootballs.com and see how the REAL world sees you. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Actually, calling Hoji a liberal is more of an ad hominem than comparing Phelps to Hitler. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hoji is fairly liberal, according to his user page. So what? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe you'd better let ColinR know that before he insults me some more.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: (To Mtn. Dew) Fair enough, but calling multiple users, since he did say "you liberals," liberals in a derogatory manner is an ad hominem attack by definition, since he's attacking the arguers, not the argument itself. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's a novel suggestion, Ashens, actually consider what you are adding to the page in question ([[Fred Phelps]]), and think about whether you truly thought that this would be accepted. "Conservative" is not synonymous with "Hatemongering buffoon". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The people who needs to remember that "Conservative" is not synonymous with "Hatemongering buffoon" are the liberals who keep calling conservatives "facists", "homophobes," and "bigots". I'M not associating conservatives with hatemongering, YOU are. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Colin, don't worry, I wasn't directing that comment toward you. I know it was meant in a derogatory fashion. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::No probs. And to Ashens, please give me one example of me insulting you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Gee, maybe when I was compared to Hitler? You don't think I find that insulting? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I never compared you to Hitler, and it was Phelps that was compared to Hitler, not you. Thus, I'd appreciate you refrain from false accusations in the future. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I never called you Hitler, Ashens, I compared Phelps to Hitler. So unless you are Phelps (I would take the utmost pleasure in blocking that sick pervert), then you weren't compared to Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::You accused anyone who is pro-family of being like Hitler. You also falsely accused me of "false accusations". I think you guys need to apologize before I report you for hounding me. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Once again, you don't understand our language. Since I don't consider Phelps pro-family (he isn't), then I didn't accuse anyone who is pro-family of being like Hitler. I only accused Phelps of being like Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, so now anyone who calls themselves pro-family but falls short of YOUR standards is just like Hitler. And now you accuse me of being ignorant and stupid, since I don't understand "your" language. Give me a break. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Consider this your first and only warning. Your incivility and name-calling will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:And now I'M being threatened when Hojimachong calls ME names! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you initiated it by calling me a "moonbat". [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, let's look at Hojimachong's comment above. I didn't start anything. I didn't call YOU a moonbat, I only said that it's the moonbats who constantly try to paint pro-family actions and beliefs and being "homophobic," "bigoted," "evil," "stupid," or "hateful." I didn't say anything about you. Hojimachong would say (as he said to me) something nasty about language that I won't repeat, but you can read for yourself. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You said "You sound like a moonbat from the late 90s." That's calling me a moonbat. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well then I apologize if you MISUNDERSTOOD me. I didn't call you anything.

::Geeze, this is just like wikipedia. No wonder wikipedia is so biased against Christians and conservatices. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Once again, you misinterpret my statements! Try reading it for a moment, because I think I explain the rationale behind my comments. That is, I don't consider Phelps to be pro-family, so by ''me'' calling him Hitler, I only meant ''him''. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T07:29:24Z

Ashens:

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-03-25T07:23:22Z

Ashens:

<center><big>''Justice never sleeps''</big></center>

{|
|Quick Links 
[[Articles for Deletion|AFD]] 
[[The Conservapedia Commandments]] 
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Speedy delete]] 
|This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Crossed out notes have been dealt with.
|Archives
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/archive1|1]]
|}

== Reporting obscenity ==

User "Hal jordan" posted obscenity here. In addition to being blocked, his full IP address and other identifying information have been reported to [http://www.rrsecurity-abuse.com/contactus.html Road Runner] with the request that it take immediate action against him for posting obscenity to a website used by minors under the age of 16.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

A Soft Layer Technologies system in Dallas was the source of a different obscenity by a user. The user has been blocked and the owner of the server has been notified at support@SoftLayer.com .--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removing users ==
*[[User:JamesLipton]] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JamesLipton contribs]) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darfur&diff=prev&oldid=50233][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=50188]
*[[User:Smile]] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Smile contribs]) looks like nonsense; [[Michael Moore]] in Category:Mammels; [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Moore&diff=prev&oldid=52386] numerous random people in [[:Category:Evolutionists]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:I've warned him. Please alert me if he does it again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::There's no evidence the dozen or so people he calls Evolutionists are Evolutionists; to me it looks like trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry - I meant to put Michael Moore as an Evolutionist, but I was too fast on the copy and paste. I was trying to add an evolutionist tag as appropriate, and I don't know a better way than to just browse random articles - so they are random, sort-of. [[User:Smile|Smile]] 00:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Look, I'm willing to give you some leeway with this as you aren't doing the usual vandalism stuff. But back up those evolutionist tags ok? And cut out the mammal stuff.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I think [[Skin Flute]] may have earned you a ban. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Flute&diff=prev&oldid=52337] And these could be speedied. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&diff=prev&oldid=52348][http://www.conservapedia.com/Bob_Saget] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I gave him one week; there's a lot of nonsense there, but some stuff is bordereline. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Deus rex caelum]]--Is making parody/mocking edits/entries.

: I almost blocked him last night, but thought perhaps it best to give more of an opportunity to be constructive. His edits have not been clear vandalism, though I agree at least one seems silly. Maybe he'll get serious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Scalito1776]] - has made numerous vandalizing edits --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY: blocked for infinite duration, and his vandalism has been rolled back. We also have his IP address and ISP.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Sisyphus]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microscope&direction=next&oldid=41608 Microscope], prank/parody article: "Microscopes are ''purportedly'' instruments that enable the user to view objects smaller than the eye is capable of visualizing... Microscopes are frequently used by scientists, such as those arguing in favor of human cloning, stem cell research, and evolution... little investigation has been done into the possibility that microscopes may cause the existence of the very microbes they purport to offer us a glimpse at. It is also possible that the scientific method may itself be at fault." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY: blocked for one week for his one edit, which was inappropriate. Good decision here by another SYSOP (Geo). Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Scriabin]] and [[User:Familyman]], for subtle vandalism in their creation of the original articles on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=33939 Johann Sebastian Bach] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bach%2C_johann_sebastian&oldid=40072 Bach, johann sebastian] (now a redirect). They highlight a problem that concerns me: both of these articles, as created, are poisonous mixes of valid information with misinformation that is subtle enough to escape notice by people who don't know the subject, while ludicrous enough to arouse the derision of those who do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=33939 Johann Sebastian Bach] said that Bach composed "a C Minor Mass." If he did, it's obscure, whereas his '''B''' Minor Mass is celebrated; ''Mozart'' wrote a famous C Minor Mass. That could be a typo. Saying Bach composed ''The Diabelli Variations'' (which are by Beethoven) can't be. The original version of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bach%2C_johann_sebastian&oldid=40072 Bach, johann sebastian] goes over the top when it says "The title of his collection Bach's Great Organ Works is attributed, according to legend, to his wife Anna Magdalena Bach upon the delivery of their umpteenth child." OK, maybe not-so-subtle vandalism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Familyman has been blocked, and upon Dpbsmith's comments above I also blocked Scriabin. But upon further extensive investigation I couldn't find evidence justifying a block of Scriabin, so I have unblocked him. I have an open mind about this and welcome comments by others. I'm particularly reluctant to disagree with Dpbsmith, who has almost always been right here and has been with us since nearly the beginning. Thanks, Dpbsmith!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::(You're welcome!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT) P. S. Since it wasn't at all obvious (and still isn't) that Scriabin's edit represented abuse, and since he wasn't making rapid edits, I should have asked him about this on his Talk page instead of going here. I've now done so now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Scriabin and I have exchanged mutual apologies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I am reporting [[user: Conservative]] He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[Eric Mukherjee]]. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''(removed names - these people may not be involved. Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)'''--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

[[user: JC]] is a suspected vandal. Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything. ([[User:AustinM|AustinM]])

:What is going on?
:[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] gets granted exclusive rights to put the [[creationist]] view on the [[Theory of evolution]] article. [[User:AustinM|AustinM]] banns [[User:JC|JC]] for putting the creationist view on other articles, claiming it is vandalism. [[User:AustinM|AustinM]] then goes and vandalizes the [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[John Major]] and [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]] articles. Are Conservatives fighting amongst each other in order to decide whose version of reality gets to be the definitive one? Can't wait for the SYSOPs banning SYSOPs melee.
:This site is an endless source of surreal entertainment. I can't really see anyone taking it seriously as an encyclopedia.
:I assume I'll get banned for pointing that out.
:[[User:WhatIsGoingOn|WhatIsGoingOn]] 15:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Handy jargon: on Wikipedia, this is known as a "wheel war." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Interesting, I always idly wondered about that term means (and always forgot to look it up), so thanks for the info! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

===Christianity===
The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation. It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated. For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate!

In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out. Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue. That should be different here! Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity. Facts are still facts. But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge. Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.

I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues. All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church. There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us. God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions. But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity. As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited.

Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing?
Thank you,

PD Popejoy

:''All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.''
:They, on the other hand would disagree. Are we going with [[Truth By Headcount]], now? If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not sure where this stands now, and I apologize for being late on this discussion. But I wanted to say this: let's avoid using the word "cult" to describe any group. It seems overly pejorative and not encyclopedic. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Mr. Schlafly is correct. Too many words are bandied about all over the Net. Jim Jones, of Jonestown--Peoples Temple infamy, he ran a "Cult". So think of him, and his tragedy, before applying that word. Last I checked, neither the JW's or LDS people were telling their people to drink Kool-aid laced with poison, so they could cross over and meet Jesus.

Blocked [[user:JesusSaves]] for three days. Reason for it was in repeated inclusion of a nonsensical line in the article [[Genesis]], and his decision to begin and escalate an argument about it. When given a last warning to stop, he continued. It's documented on the [[Genesis]] talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:I have to tell you, this is a mirror image of when Conservative blocked AmesG. Karajou, you were involved in a personal dispute with the user and should probably get a fellow sysop to sign off on that.

:From [[Talk:Genesis]] "If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)"

:The fight was with you... get a neutral sysop to go with you... you probably had a case but booting him yourself removes your moral authority. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I reviewed this debate betwen Karajou and JesusSaves at length. While blocking is always a last resort, it is appropriate when someone is repeatedly interfering with productive work. Karajou could have locked the page, but that would have prevented others from contributing to this work-in-progress.

:: JesusSaves should have deferred to the person doing the most work on the entry (Karajou). It's not right for a bystander to come along and repeatedly insist on placing a dot somewhere in the Mona Lisa as Da Vinci paints it. Karajou warned JesusSaves repeatedly, and even then blocked him for only 3 days.

:: Put another way, we don't allow a heckler's veto here. Some professional courtesy and deference is appropriate, and Karajou need not divert his efforts to track down other SYSOPs in this situation. I hope JesusSaves will return and not insist on his same edit yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Personaly, I did not like the thought of having him, or anyone else for that matter, removed from the site. I think a better preference for myself at least would be to contact another sysop or Aschlafly for arbitration should another incident happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

------------------

I responded on your talk page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current Alerts==
*Dunno about [[Breast Exam]], initial text by [[User:NewGuy2]], image added by [[User:EditGenius2]]. Sincere article about an important and nonsexual topic, or deliberate attempt to push at the borderlines? Image appears to have been copied from http://www.iparenting.com/resources/articles/cancerpregnancy.htm by the way. Image is not obscene in context but I would have thought it was hot stuff when I was thirteen. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:EditGenius2]] also uploaded [:Image:SelfExam.jpg] but no pages link to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
*Seems to be an edit war in progress over the same image at [[Self Breast Exam]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:52, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::Could people at least reply on the talk page for the breast exam page for WHY they keep deleting the non offensive image? If that's offensive, then this is going to end up being an amazingly tiny encyclopedia. It doesn't show anything rude, as I said on the talk page, yet it's gone once again. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::This is going to be a very tiny encyclopedia. That's sort of the point, unfortunately. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 22:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, I deleted that stuff about breast exams. Go look in your Encyclopedia Britannica and see if you find voyeurism like that. You won't, and it shouldn't be here either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Due respect, Andy, but you will... you will find anatomical pictures of breasts, etc. But then again, in an EB, you'll also not find outright censorship of material on evolution.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The desire by so many (present company excluded) to teach about sex has really been an eye-opener for me. There appear to be millions of people wanting to teach about sex! Virtually none of them become doctors, or even go into health professions. Virtually none want to become real teachers. But it's amazing how many want to be teachers of sex-related topics!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Woot! Sign me up!--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Can't say I understood that. Sorry. But, first, breast exams are not sex. They're cancer prevention. Second, teaching about safe sex prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::LOL, "teaching about sex", "voyeurism", ahahaah. Sorry but those are just the complete wrong terms to use. First of all, a picture of a *covered* breast couldn't possibly relate to sex. I'm sorry but that's just not how it works. And how it is voyeurism I will never know, since that would theoretically be a pervert watching someone through a window without them knowing it, or something similar. This is a diagram used to help prevent Breast Cancer. They were definately fully aware of a photo being taken, are covering themselves, and aren't doing anything sexual. But whatever, if you want to be afraid of a bare stomach being shown, inflict censorship, by all means. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 23:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Can somebody delete http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobS&redirect=no please? The page got moved away from its proper space, but the move can't be undone since the moving user also removed the redirect (thus giving the page an actual edit history). If somebody deleted the redirecting page, the move could be reverted --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
**Quick edit to add: I'm not sure if the user had the aim of vandalizing the page, but I figured that most admins check in here for maintenance tasks --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Addressed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Could I ask for another favor in that line? Delete the current copy-pasted Talk page (as of now, no new content has been added to it) content and do a real page move from [[Usertalk:RobS]] to [[User talk:RobS]]? That way, the edit history stays intact, and the old page simply turns into a redirect. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:TheEnlightener]] is advocating the use of [[Drugs]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Long-term tasks==
I made a "short" list of redirects that still exist after the "on wheels" move vandalism. I believe they should be cleaned up... But instead of actually editing fifty redirect pages to include them in the "Speedy Delete" category, I just compiled a list at [[User:Sid 3050/Deletion List]]. I also included the Delete links AND lined them up in a nifty column so you can just click away if you like. (Yes, I've been having far too much fun with regular expression replacements there. I'm weird like that.) =P --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Did someone beat me to it? I tried and there was nothing to delete for everything I clicked. Thanks for your superb list!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, whatever. MountainDew reacted to the call within minutes, so you should praise him. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler article ==
The Hitler article is locked to prevent vandalism, but the most recent changes by [[User:RobS | RobS]] and [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]] are nothing short of vandalism. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 14:00 (AEST
:I fail to see how I vandalized this page by adding information. I have unprotected it to allow work. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::It looked like subtle vandalism, by inserting many red herrings and factual erros. Thanks for unprotecting it, although I am not sure where to begin first. The article bebfore the ''improvment drive'' was maybe short, and a bit simplistic, but at least fairly correct.--[[User:Order |Order]] 19 March 20:00 (AEST)

*I posted over there at the Hitler talk page. Let's hope cooler heads will manage the rather simple task of informing users what Hitler was, and what it was he ordered, without getting bogged down in nitpicks and petty arguments. When examining '''true Evil''', and trying to explain it, we simply don't have time for that kind of crap. --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can somebody stop [[User:RobS | RobS]] from editing the Hitler article. Every entry he adds contains at least two factual errors, and he presents legends on Hitler as facts. He doesn't do any research before an edit, and probabaly just relies on his recollections from either history class or his grandmother. Locking this page to prevent vandalism doesn't help, if there is a not-so-subtle vandal among the sysops. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)

: And [[User:TK|TK]] is posted copyrighted material. As a sysop. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)
:There is no subtle vandalism going on, it is a good faith effort to improve this article. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:How do you distinguish? If they weren't sysops, they would or should have gotten a warning. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 17:55 (AEST)
::Intent [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They have been told a few times, especially [[User:RobS | RobS]] that the edits conatin many factual errors. That didn't keep him from introducing more. I assume he did it with intend, since I assume that he is able to google for actual information, rather relying on myths, legends, or made up stuff. If he is not able do that, I wouldn't blame him of course. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 14:00 (AEST).
*You distingush by reading the history. :p The attribution was in one of my drafts, and in all the moving and re-arranging, wasn't there when I finished in the middle of the night. Is this place always such a tempest in a teapot? I posted material that is in the public domain, not copyrighted, and attributed. If you see something like what I did, and know the attribution, it is your duty and right to add it in. If you don't know it, rather than running like a baby to abuse, you should contact the person who edited it. My email is listed here, my IM is listed. Does that not sound fair? The page was a freakin' mess. The page is supposed to be about Hitler...they were all over the map. The focus is now back where it should have been all along. I think far too many of you isolate yourselves, rather than communicating, and the last few posts are a good example.

*I assumed that you had just dumped some material for further improvement. That why I said that I was looking forward to the final version. The material that you posted was at least mostly factual. The strom in the teapot, is because the article as it was, was nothing more than a Miffy version of History. "Hitler planned a putsch in a beer hall. The army storms the room. Hitler trips and falls. Look, Hitler is unharmed. Hitler escapes." That has nothing to do with a serious entry on this guy. Thats why I was glad that you at least infused some factual material, even if it's from another site. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March 21:10 (AEST)

:*Then the purpose of posting here, before you ascertained any of the facts, was what, exactly? I am not looking to beat this horse, but I think my comments were valid, and my solution, quoting one of the foremost experts on the "Final Solution" and Adolf Hitler was better than what was going on. Sometimes one can and should copy. Only this wasn't even that, just my dumb mistake to leave the attribution off the final compilation, even though the quotes and link are on my Word copy of it. The point is, it explains who and what Hitler was. As for the rest of the page, if you all could stop sniping at one another, and hammer it all out on the talk page, it would be even better. I almost removed all the rest of the crap there, and perhaps I should have, and only transfered over what was posted and cited on the talk page. Do you think that would have been a better solution? I just get a bit riled when people run around shouting "dishonest" without ever looking at the facts present, or at least having the decency to ask. Now, why don't you get in touch, and together perhaps, since you have the interest in the topic, we can do what we can to make the page even more informative? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 06:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Didn't I say that I was actually pleased that you put the Wiesel speech into the article. I'm happy to say it again. I was glad about your material, and I was looking forward for it to be intergrated with the rest, or even replace the rest, where possible. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March 21:10 (AEST)

Please feel free to make a new header on the talk page, and give me your thoughts. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 09:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia maintenance]]

== John Howard article ==

This article appears to have a history of silly edits. The latest is by the aptly named "Not a Conservative". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=56564&oldid=54024 Here] it is. I suggest he be blocked. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Doesn't Australia have a house of Commons? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, the Federal Parliament consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The various State Parliaments have their own upper and lower houses excepting Queensland which did away with its upper house at some point. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:okay. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abuse of sysop priviledge ==
There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. [[User:RobS| RobS]] first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on [[Liberals]]. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But [[User:RobS|RobS]] now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only [[User:RobS|RobS]] can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. [[User:Order | Order]] 23 March 12:05 (AEST)

*I unlocked Hitler. I locked it. What is the problem with it now, Order? Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, his problems weren't just with [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] but with [[Liberals]], too. That came out wrong. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that [[User:RobS]] probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article show that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example

** Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
** Next edit on 22 March by [[User:RobS]].
** First edit says ''protection of all of God's creation'' '''even if advocated by atheists'''. Bold added by [[User:RobS]]. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessarily offensive.
** Same edit he adds '''opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy'''. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.
** Calling liberal parties in Europe '''so-called''' ''moderate and center-right''. The is nothing '''so-called''' about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. [[User:RobS]] just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.
** In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
** In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.
** Next few edits he fixes typos.
** Then, after his claim that liberals reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
*** First to show that there exists a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a ''liberal'' position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might added the quoye for the following reason:
***He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. This would be a case of subtle vandalism.
** When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
:Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, which [[User:RobS]] just reverts, usually without much discussion. In this way he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. [[User:Order]] 23 March 16:20 (AEST)

*I would submit that, even though I have had occasional differences with Rob, as all of you have been witness to, I find his writing and contributions, as does Andrew Schlafly‎, to be superlative. He made many valuable contributions to the Ronald Reagan page, as well as the Hitler page. He has had two or three recent articles (that he made) made featured pages here, by Andrew. Try to remember that this is the Conservapedia. As it should be, things will be represented from that point of view. Many parties in the EC are called "moderate" and, as viewed from here, by Conservatives, they are anything but.

:As to Liberals and Human Rights, President Carter for example, I see his concern for such rights certainly blossomed since he left the White House, which is good, as his record there, aside from babble, was pretty dismal on real actions. One would note that real dollar aide to Africa, Sudan in particular, and AIDS Relief, has been increased some 200% under current President Bush, as opposed to President Clinton. You've got the wrong person here to repeat crap you get from liberal websites and blogs here. Any of you can IM me and have a dialog where I can point you to factual information, pro and con, on almost any recent administration. I can safely say, Jimmy Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't like, and his support of them, if not such a tragedy, would be laughable. One notes that recently some of his closest associates have publicly and reluctantly, questioned his judgement, with the anti-Semitic statements he has made the last year or so. I just chalk it up to age.

:Finally, let me say something about ''communication''. IMO, most of the people here, including Andrew, are pretty poor at it. One cannot write major articles, contribute, and hammer out compromises, merely posting back and forth in the discussion pages. More of you should be using the IM's from whatever service, to ask questions and receive answers speedily, and to clear up budding misunderstandings. Instead, doing as most of you seem to want, we are saddled with a bunch of crying to "Uncle Andy" about all manner of bull that has nothing to do with this wiki. And please spare the crap about privacy. On any of the IM services, one can create a user ID in seconds, completely shielding this valued "privacy". It seems too many are so hell-bent on "protecting" their ideology, compromise and cooperation are completely impossible. It makes me wonder if all of you were like the class snitch back in grade school. Everyone is pretty quick to post crying to Andy, writing up "abuse" here, labeling whatever work someone does that you disagree with as "vandalism". Yet, when I check, I don't see posts on whoever is being complained about's talk page. Nooooo....no one can be man enough to do that, instead everyone runs to "tell teacher". Such actions, IMO, are cowardly, and not at all logical, but maybe most of you guys were used to getting beat up in elementary school. Yeah, when I get ticked off, I am a bit extra blunt, sorry if some of you are "fragile". Please don't sue me for emotional distress. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dude, you really need to breathe a little, maybe count to ten before typing. Who exactly are you addressing with that? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I should add that I looked at RobS contribution when he was mangling the Hitler article, and I was surprised that he did indeed write some decent and good articles. The more I was puzzled, why he did so poor on the Hitler article. There he mostly added factual errors. In the article about ''Liberals'' he did not add too many factual errors, but turned a fairly factual article written with a conservative perspective, into an opinion piece. And added a few factual errors. I mean, if the liberal party of Austria looks left-wing to you (this is party where Haider was chairman), I have to assume that you are even more right wing than Haider. Many conservatives in the US aren't.

But the points, even if you agree with what RobS says, its is still an opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. And I can see someone who is not exposed to the world outside of the US can make a mistake, in assessing European liberal parties, he should then at least look at the talk page, do a bit of research, and not start the entire discussion all over again. This is not about content, it's about style. And RobS style is that he abuses his sysop privileges.[[User:Order]] 23 March 19:10 (AEST)

*The culture here, dude. Most of the above should have been on the talk page at Liberal, I guess, or at RobS's talk page. Everything under the sun, to some, seems to be "abuse". It is rapidly becoming the most over-used word in the world. Whatever happened to actually chatting with one another, directly? I guess most of you won't get it. :S --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:There has been a lengthy discussion on it on the talk page of "Liberals". The frustrating bit is that RobS willingly does not seem to care and do he want to do anyway. Look at the history of Liberals, and also at the history of the Hitler article. [[User:Order]] 23 March 19:10 (AEST)

*I will, and I am going to ask a couple of other Sysops who haven't contributed to the pages in question, to have a look also. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Users to watch ==

"The Phelpster" (possibly obsessed with Phelps)
"Hojimawang" (awfully close to our highly valued Sysop)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both already blocked for impersonation/inappropriate username. Sorry, but having a username as "The Phelpster" is completely unnecessary, and isn't going to cut it here. And "Hojimawang"? I don't think so... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

: Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Now time for more BORF-hunting! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Some idiot keeps registering nonsense names about Hitler being a sensitive man. [[User:Sensitivity + Man = Hitler|Sensitivity + Man = Hitler]] 14:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*BORF. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I am officially nominating [[User:NeverForget]] as a BORF. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I'm being hounded and threatened! ==

Hojimachong is threatening me for "incivility and name-calling" when the reality is that I'm the one being hounded by these people. See my talk page. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T07:20:21Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T07:12:13Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T07:02:57Z

Ashens:

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:54:19Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:53:25Z

Ashens: Removed old entries.

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:49:29Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

Thanks for your interesting entries.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Bush's reelection in 2004 was controversial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:56, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Many people assert that Bush "stole" the election because of voting fraud. They cite discrepancies between polling and actual vote counts. I don't take it seriously, but apparently many liberals do. This is a popular article, though I didn't know how to include it in the page on Bush. http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 01:03 24 February 2007 (EST)

::OK, but sore losers are common. I'm not sure sour grapes by liberals in 2004 makes the election outcome controversial. Is JFK's victory in 1960 also described by liberals as "controversial"? Tell you what, I'll just go ahead and make an edit to [[George W. Bush]]. Thanks again for your interesting entries and edits, which are superb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:::Thanks for the compliment! As for the [[George W. Bush]] entry, hopefully other users will provide some input on whether or not "controversy" is warranted.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 01:37 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Relativity edit ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&curid=4171&diff=16308&oldid=15423] I don't see what is parody about that edit (in fact, it looks to me like one of the few things on that page that makes sense). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:02, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:While there are many jokes revolving around Relativity, it's not used to support relative morality. The part that I removed was an attempt to parody Christians' genuine rebuttal of evolutionary moral standards. Evolution implies relative morality and so creationists attack the unproven theory by demonstrating why their moral standards are flawed. Evolutionists don't like it when creationists refute this part of their so-called science and so I think they're attempting to mock the argument by applying the same reasoning to Relativity.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 10:17 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, if one actually reads post-modern discussions of morality (which I don't generally recommend one does), references to using some notion of relativity as being justified by Einstein occur all the time. As point of fact, I have never actually seen claims that evolution implies some form of moral relativity outside creationist circles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Evidence for evolution ==

You asked on my wall why you should trust scientists, since they never back up evolution with facts.

I understand your confusion. It's a complicated theory. But if you keep an open mind and are actually curious, I'd be happy to suggest a book on evolution for you.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fred Phelps ==

It is not "liberal bias" to say that Phelps is known for his anti-homosexual viewpoints. That's what he's known for. And, by the way, I'm from Kansas, where he's from, and he isn't known as a pro-family leader. Even the most pro-family conservative politicans around here hate him. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You sound like a moonbat from the late 90's. Why do you think Bush called it the "Defence of Marriage" amendment? Because he was defending a sacred instituion, not attacking homosexuals (no matter what the liberal MSM might say)! Why do you think they call it "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays"? Because Dr. Dobson is pro-family, not anti-homosexual! Why do you think they call it the "Family Research Council"? Because they're pro-family, not anti-homosexual. The fact of the matter is that it's called pro-family, and the only people who disagree are pro-homosexual liberals who are unfairly trying to paint conservatives as hateful, stupid, evil bigots.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suggest you keep reverting the page till they see it your way.

:::Besides, none of the people you mentioned ''condemned'' homosexuality, but promoted marriage. Phelps makes it quite clear that he wishes it upon all who do not agree with him to burn in hell. How is that not hate? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because it's the WORD OF GOD!! God loves everyone. If He hates sin, it's because sin is evil.

::::I don't want to just get into an edit war, because that's useless. Any facts that I insert for the conservative view will just be deleted if we can't agree.

::::For goodness' sake, this is supposed to be a CONSERVAPEDIA, not a wikipedia clone, with all of wikipedia's biases. If it were up to people like you, we'd probably have a pro-evolution page right now!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Phelps is a Democrat, like you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Keep your insults to yourself. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Conservapedia is a far cry from "supporting hate-mongers with nonfactual information"apedia. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Just like a liberal to call anyone who has Truth to be a "hate-monger". How long until you liberals outlaw the Bible as hatespeech? It's already taken place in Canada. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's a disgrace to Conservatives to consider Phelps as "Pro-Family". He has ''never'' preached a pro-family message, only "march to my beat, hate gays, catholics, and swedes". There was somebody else like that, his name was [[Hitler]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nice ad-hominem. Remember, Hitler liked dogs. Does that make any dog-owner a Nazi? You liberals need to go to www.littlegreenfootballs.com and see how the REAL world sees you. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-25T06:46:04Z

Ashens: /* Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:43:45Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:43:24Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

Thanks for your interesting entries.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that Bush's reelection in 2004 was controversial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:56, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Many people assert that Bush "stole" the election because of voting fraud. They cite discrepancies between polling and actual vote counts. I don't take it seriously, but apparently many liberals do. This is a popular article, though I didn't know how to include it in the page on Bush. http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 01:03 24 February 2007 (EST)

::OK, but sore losers are common. I'm not sure sour grapes by liberals in 2004 makes the election outcome controversial. Is JFK's victory in 1960 also described by liberals as "controversial"? Tell you what, I'll just go ahead and make an edit to [[George W. Bush]]. Thanks again for your interesting entries and edits, which are superb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:::Thanks for the compliment! As for the [[George W. Bush]] entry, hopefully other users will provide some input on whether or not "controversy" is warranted.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 01:37 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Relativity edit ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&curid=4171&diff=16308&oldid=15423] I don't see what is parody about that edit (in fact, it looks to me like one of the few things on that page that makes sense). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:02, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:While there are many jokes revolving around Relativity, it's not used to support relative morality. The part that I removed was an attempt to parody Christians' genuine rebuttal of evolutionary moral standards. Evolution implies relative morality and so creationists attack the unproven theory by demonstrating why their moral standards are flawed. Evolutionists don't like it when creationists refute this part of their so-called science and so I think they're attempting to mock the argument by applying the same reasoning to Relativity.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 10:17 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, if one actually reads post-modern discussions of morality (which I don't generally recommend one does), references to using some notion of relativity as being justified by Einstein occur all the time. As point of fact, I have never actually seen claims that evolution implies some form of moral relativity outside creationist circles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Evidence for evolution ==

You asked on my wall why you should trust scientists, since they never back up evolution with facts.

I understand your confusion. It's a complicated theory. But if you keep an open mind and are actually curious, I'd be happy to suggest a book on evolution for you.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fred Phelps ==

It is not "liberal bias" to say that Phelps is known for his anti-homosexual viewpoints. That's what he's known for. And, by the way, I'm from Kansas, where he's from, and he isn't known as a pro-family leader. Even the most pro-family conservative politicans around here hate him. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You sound like a moonbat from the late 90's. Why do you think Bush called it the "Defence of Marriage" amendment? Because he was defending a sacred instituion, not attacking homosexuals (no matter what the liberal MSM might say)! Why do you think they call it "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays"? Because Dr. Dobson is pro-family, not anti-homosexual! Why do you think they call it the "Family Research Council"? Because they're pro-family, not anti-homosexual. The fact of the matter is that it's called pro-family, and the only people who disagree are pro-homosexual liberals who are unfairly trying to paint conservatives as hateful, stupid, evil bigots.--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I suggest you keep reverting the page till they see it your way.

:::Besides, none of the people you mentioned ''condemned'' homosexuality, but promoted marriage. Phelps makes it quite clear that he wishes it upon all who do not agree with him to burn in hell. How is that not hate? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because it's the WORD OF GOD!! God loves everyone. If He hates sin, it's because sin is evil.

I don't want to just get into an edit war, because that's useless. Any facts that I insert for the conservative view will just be deleted if we can't agree.

For goodness' sake, this is supposed to be a CONSERVAPEDIA, not a wikipedia clone, with all of wikipedia's biases. If it were up to people like you, we'd probably have a pro-evolution page right now!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-03-25T06:38:29Z

Ashens:

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:32:37Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

User talk:Ashens

2007-03-25T06:31:30Z

Ashens: /* Fred Phelps */

Fred Phelps

2007-03-25T06:25:41Z

Ashens: slight changes to remove liberal bias

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|thumb|Fred Phelps]]

'''Fred Phelps''' is the founder and pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, [[Kansas]] who is widely known for his strong pro-family viewpoints. His congregates (of which there are several dozen, most of whom live within Phelps's extended family) often protest military funerals, and almost anything that attracts a large amount of people (past targets include operas, a chess tournament in Lindsborg, Kansas, funerals of school shooting victims, and many other things). His rallies display signs with highly inflammatory statements and language claiming that God hates homosexuals. He holds to a hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint which is generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by some Christian scholars.
Phelps has led protests of military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on military funeral protests.

Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles.

Before beginning his protests in earnest in the mid 1990s, Phelps was a contributor to the Democratic Party who helped campaign for [[Al Gore]] in 1988, when Gore's viewpoints were not as socially liberal. <ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> This proved to later be an embarrassment to Gore.

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a literal interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

[[Image:Phelps2.jpg|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]

Phelps and his congregation were recently sued in US District Court in Columbia by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father is suing Phelps for defamation for stating his religious opinion that, ''. Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell ..'' during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. This litigation is currently pending.

Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.

==References==
<references/>

Mount Sinai

2007-03-20T08:50:08Z

Ashens: Re-worded sentence to make article more Christian-friendly.

A mountain. According to the Bible, this is the location where [[Moses]] recieved the [[Ten Commandments]] from God.

[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-15T18:04:30Z

Ashens: /* Modern Day Dinosaurs */

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.

*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-03-14T09:00:26Z

Ashens: /* Space Ship Theory */

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-03-14T08:48:06Z

Ashens:

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-03-14T08:47:38Z

Ashens: /* "religious theories" */

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-14T08:33:07Z

Ashens: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

Earth

2007-03-13T20:44:25Z

Ashens: AmesG, the assertions of evolutionists are not automatically fact. This is supposed to be an unbiased article that looks at all perspectives.

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Earth''' is the third planet in the solar system.

==Earth Information==

The Earth orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible.

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years to an accuracy of about 1%. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

==Christianity and the Earth==

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not a priori biased in favor of creationism. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Evolutionists claim that scientific evidence, obtained through the [[scientific method]], suggests otherwise, dating the earth at beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> In addition, many human societies predate the alleged creation of the world at 4000 B.C.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Kangaroo

2007-03-13T20:40:31Z

Ashens: Removed anti-Christian line AGAIN

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They currently are native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four different sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[baramin]]: the Western Grey Kangaroo, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong and powerful, good for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivores]], eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Male kangaroos will go around the mob checking the females’ [[cloaca]]. Many times, males are rejected by the females because of size if they are small. In other cases, if a larger male is checking a female out, she may just move away. Sometimes, when a male is checking out a female, the female will urinate for the male, who will sniff the urine. Some studies show that this ritual is for the male to see if the female kangaroo is receptive to him or not.

If the female is responsive to the male, she raises her tail and the male will follow her. Sometimes the kangaroos will scratch each other’s tails or the male will give the female a back rub before mating. When the female is ready to mate she will arch her tail.

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weigh as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. They spend a lot of time in their mothers pouch developing. The Red Kangaroo joey will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about a year.

==Origins==

According to the origins theory model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the [[Middle East]]<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[apobaramin | apobaraminic]] or [[polybaramin | polybaraminic]].

Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time connected to Europe by a land bridge similar to the one that connected Asia to America. ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>.

The scientific view is that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived millions of years ago.<ref>http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html</ref>

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Earth

2007-03-13T18:54:45Z

Ashens: /* Christianity and the Earth */ clarification

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Earth''' is the third planet in the solar system.

==Earth Information==

The Earth orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible.

Some claim the Earth is flat [http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Flat Earth Society], but most say the Earth is round and approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years to an accuracy of about 1%. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

==Christianity and the Earth==

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not a priori biased in favor of creationism.<ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Evolutionists claim that scientific evidence, obtained through the [[scientific method]], suggests otherwise, dating the earth at beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> In addition, many human societies predate the alleged creation of the world at 4000 B.C.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Kangaroo

2007-03-13T14:34:37Z

Ashens: /* Origins */ removed anti-Christian sentence

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They currently are native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four different sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[baramin]]: the Western Grey Kangaroo, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong and powerful, good for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivores]], eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Male kangaroos will go around the mob checking the females’ [[cloaca]]. Many times, males are rejected by the females because of size if they are small. In other cases, if a larger male is checking a female out, she may just move away. Sometimes, when a male is checking out a female, the female will urinate for the male, who will sniff the urine. Some studies show that this ritual is for the male to see if the female kangaroo is receptive to him or not.

If the female is responsive to the male, she raises her tail and the male will follow her. Sometimes the kangaroos will scratch each other’s tails or the male will give the female a back rub before mating. When the female is ready to mate she will arch her tail.

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weigh as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. They spend a lot of time in their mothers pouch developing. The Red Kangaroo joey will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about a year.

==Origins==

According to the origins theory model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the [[Middle East]]<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[apobaramin | apobaraminic]] or [[polybaramin | polybaraminic]].

Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time connected to Europe by a land bridge similar to the one that connected Asia to America. ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>

The secular scientific view is that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived millions of years ago.<ref>http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html</ref>

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Conservative

2007-03-13T00:45:56Z

Ashens: Clarification of issues, removed redundant bullet point

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

* National defense and high military spending
* Return of prayer in school
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy
* Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion

Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.

Every 20-60 years a conservative is elected president of the United States. Examples include:
 [[George Washington]]
 [[James Monroe]]
 [[Abraham Lincoln]]
 [[Grover Cleveland]]
 [[Warren G. Harding]]
 [[Ronald Reagan]]
 [[George W. Bush]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].

== References ==

<references/>

Religion

2007-03-11T05:43:20Z

Ashens: Alphabetized list

A system of beliefs about the supernatural.

----

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* The [[Heaven's Gate]] [[cult]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Jenovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Pastafarianism]] ''(A [[joke religion]])''
* [[Rastafarianism]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

[[Category: Religion]]

Noah's Ark

2007-03-07T23:14:39Z

Ashens: Added information in Ron Wyatt's discoveries

According to the book of Genesis, The '''Ark''' or '''Noah's Ark''' was built by [[Noah]] on the directions of God so that His creation may be preserved following the [[Great Flood]].

The Ark was constructed with [[pitched]] [[gopher wood]] and had three stories divided into multiple rooms, a window, and a door.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:14, 6:16</ref> The dimensions were three hundred [[cubit | cubits]] long by fifty cubits wide by thirty cubits high.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref>

Noah was instructed by God to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:18-7:3</ref> <ref>''Genesis'' 7:6, 7:11</ref>, God shut them all inside the Ark and started the Flood.

Many scholars believe that the Great Flood, which occured serveral thousand years ago, created natural wonders of the world such as the Grand Canyon. Other scientists believe that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years but that theory is unable to take into account the events of the Great Flood.

After forty days and forty nights of rain, the Ark was adrift for 150 days until finally the waters subsided.<ref>''Genesis'' 7:24-8:1</ref>The Ark came to rest somewhere in the mountains of Ararat.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:4</ref> This is believed to be in modern Turkey.

It took another forty days until the waters decreased so that Noah was able to open the window and send forth a raven and a dove to see if the earth was dry enough to exit.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:14-16</ref>

It is thought that a feature, known as the Ararat anomaly, could be the wreck of the Ark. A expedition to this anomaly was denied permission by the Turkish authorities in 2004.

In 1977, celebrated Christian archaelogist Ron Wyatt thoroughly examined a site on Mount Ararat which he later came to believe was the remnants of Noah's Ark <ref>http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-04.htm</ref>. However, his findings have since come under criticsm from other archaeologists.<ref>http://www2.andrews.edu/~merling/</ref>

==Controversy==
Atheist organizations do not believe that Noah's Ark existed and claim to have found problems in the Bible<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>. However, these objections have been thoroughly rebutted several times, most notably by John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" <ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref>. Furthermore, even the critics of Noah's Ark admit that their objections do not come from the Bible.

==References==
<references/>

Heaven

2007-03-07T23:04:30Z

Ashens: Added references heading. We need some for this entry.

'''Heaven''' is a location (either physical or spiritual) reserved as the afterlife in many religions especially the Abrahamic faiths. The conditions to enter heaven(in Christianity, the state of "salvation")) often revolve around some standard of piety. In Orthodox and Catholic Christianity belief in Jesus and and proper works are often considered necessary although in some versions sufficient good deeds can lead to entering heaven even without belief in Jesus. In Protestant Christianity there is a large amount of variance as to entry conditions. Certain groups, such as many evangelicals, believe that salvation comes from belief in Jesus and acceptance of Jesus as a "personal Lord and Savior" as a necessary and sufficient condition for entering heaven. This doctrine is know as [[Sola fide]]. Other Protestants, such as Anglicans, take a view very close to the view taken by Catholicism. Certain Protestants, such as Calvinists, have believed that salvation was [[predestiny|pre-destined]] and that individuals could not take any actions to alter their final state. Still others are universalist, believing that eventually everyone will enter heaven (although some of [[purgatory]] or a similar notion may be necessary). Judaism focuses much less on the nature and method of entering heaven, but has emphasized good deeds (''mitzvot'') over belief and has strong univeralist tendencies. Islam has a variety of viewpoints on the matter with many of them emphasizing belief in God and acceptance of Muhammed as God's Prophet.
==References==

Earth

2007-03-07T22:58:55Z

Ashens: Added pro-Christian information

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Earth''' is the name for the planet on which humankind lives. It is the third planet from the Sun.

It orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible. The fact that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun is taken by many Christians to be evidence of God's existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Of course, Atheists just ignore this fact.

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by non-creationist geologists of the age of the Earth have varied over the years; currently, most scientists believe the age of the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years. In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

Bible scholars have also estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by R. B. Knox, [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] (usually referred to as Archbishop Ussher) in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Creationism

2007-03-07T22:52:21Z

Ashens: reverted previous change in light of discussion

Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolutionism]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp]. Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the more literal Genesis interpretations, but nearly all embrace the [[Crucifixion]] of [[Jesus]] as a redemption for the sin of [[Adam]]. Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

== Types of Creationists ==

There are many different types of creationism, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the major categories.

*[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the idea the young earth creationist view. [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm] An example of a Young Earth Creationist ministry today is [[Answers in Genesis]].[http://www.answersingenesis.org/]

*[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] agree with the common scientific age of the earth at around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally reconcile the age of the earth with Genesis by positing that the days in Genesis were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood. An example of a major Old Earth Creationist ministry is Reasons to Believe [http://www.reasons.org].

*[[Theistic Evolution]] is the belief that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in physical evolution. In general, theistic evolution accepts the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. This is the position proposed by a few Catholic theologians who do not speaking for the Catholic Church <ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>.

== Controversial Classification ==

It is unclear if [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas. For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is [[Paul Nelson]] who a Young Earth Creationist, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref> and that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity(possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]

== See also ==
*[[Lists of Creationists]]

==External links ==

===Young Earth Creationist Organizations ===
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] - Although not completely Young Earth, [[CreationWiki]] is a mainly Young Earth Creationist Wiki.

=== Old Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry]

==References and Footnotes==
<references/>

Atheism

2007-03-07T22:50:42Z

Ashens: Tried to clarify difference between atheism and agnoticism

Atheism, in common usage, means "lack of belief in any Gods". In practice, Atheists discounts supernatural phenomena such as the afterlife, divine revelation, ghosts as well as God.

Atheism is popularly divided into Strong and Weak Atheism: Strong Atheism can be defined as a dogma in itself: The assertion that there absolutely is no God, despite the fact that the existence of the supernatural cannot be disproven. Some people calling themselves Atheists acknowledge that God can not be disproven, and while this does not suggest that there *is* a god (no more than the fact that we cannot disprove leprechauns suggests that they exist) it would nonetheless be unscientific to declare a God or godlike being impossible. These people are actually Agnostics.

Atheism is closely tied with Secular Humanism. Popularly-known Atheists include Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Stephen J. Gould, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, as well as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin.

== Atheist morality ==

Many atheists base their moral code upon emotion, experience and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that the Bible cannot be our source of morality as it contains countless calls for immoral behavior such as the Israelites driving out heathen nations from Canaan, stoning homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right simply because you feel that it's right, rather than because you fear divine punishment.

The common argument that Nazism and Stalinism were atheistic in nature and that their violence stemmed from that nature ignores more recent examples of what they actually were; Personality cults. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and more recently despots like Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro were or are at the center of governments which enforce reverence unto them as though they were deities. Regardless of this it is obvious that no democracy has ever elected a leader who did not believe in God or a higher power. Thus, democracy is favoured by God.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Creationism

2007-03-07T22:09:23Z

Ashens: Sub-thread: evolutionism

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Fox News

2007-03-07T22:00:30Z

Ashens:

Is a citation ''from'' Fox News saying that Fox News is fair and balanced really a good idea?
I would think that it would be more appropriately said as "Fox News claims to be fair and balanced," or something along those lines.
Anyone disagree?
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 15:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think this entire article could use an overhaul. Although I am a supporter of Fox News, the bias in this article in very apparent. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)
*I disagree. If there's any bias in this article, it's toward conservatism and the Truth, which was the whole purpose of Conservapedia in the first place! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 16:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:*Well it does have a very obvious bias. You are right in saying that Conservapedia has a point of view to impose. But the srticle goes beyond the point of view of Conservapedia.
:Take this example from the article: "Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide."
:#Even though I may think it is a fact that Fox News is the best, it is merely my opinion.
:#This sentence and others are worded as if they were written by a 1st grader - read after comma to see what I mean.
:The point is the article must be written over again to present a factual, encyclopedia-worthy article. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)
**If one news source tells you what to think (as any of the leftist mainstream media stations do) and another just reports the facts in a fair and unbiased manner, then clearly the second news source is superior, by definition! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

True. Didn't even notice the "Sean Hannity is a great American" statement at first, which I think is safe to say is an opinion. Also, the reference points to an outdated car giveaway. Doesn't seem like it belongs.
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 15:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Noah's Ark

2007-03-07T21:55:48Z

Ashens: Added 'Controversy' heading, began entry. Please expand!

According to the book of Genesis, The '''Ark''' or '''Noah's Ark''' was built by [[Noah]] on the directions of God so that His creation may be preserved following the [[Great Flood]].

The Ark was constructed with [[pitched]] [[gopher wood]] and had three stories divided into multiple rooms, a window, and a door.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:14, 6:16</ref> The dimensions were three hundred [[cubit | cubits]] long by fifty cubits wide by thirty cubits high.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref>

Noah was instructed by God to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:18-7:3</ref> <ref>''Genesis'' 7:6, 7:11</ref>, God shut them all inside the Ark and started the Flood.

After forty days and forty nights of rain, the Ark was adrift for 150 days until finally the waters subsided.<ref>''Genesis'' 7:24-8:1</ref>The Ark came to rest somewhere in the mountains of Ararat.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:4</ref> This is believed to be in modern Turkey.

It took another forty days until the waters decreased so that Noah was able to open the window and send forth a raven and a dove to see if the earth was dry enough to exit.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:14-16</ref>

It is thought that a feature, known as the Ararat anomaly, could be the wreck of the Ark. A expedition to this anomaly was denied permission by the Turkish authorities in 2004.

==Controversy==
Atheist organizations do not believe that Noah's Ark existed and claim to have found problems in the Bible<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>. However, these objections have been thoroughly rebutted several times, most notably by John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" <ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref>. Furthermore, even the critics of Noah's Ark admit that their objections do not come from the Bible.

==References==
<references/>

Creationism

2007-03-07T21:47:10Z

Ashens: replaced slightly clunky phrase "evolutionary ideas" with "evolutionism"

Talk:Fox News

2007-03-07T21:44:54Z

Ashens:

Talk:Earth

2007-03-02T02:58:53Z

Ashens: /* Protection against evolutionist suppression of material - namely JoshuaZ */

==U. S. Customary units==
I don't know what Conservapedia's policy on units and dimensions is, but taking the lead from the "American" spelling policy, I have used U. S. Customary units rather than SI ("metric system") units throughout this article.

But please discuss, as SI units are more appropriate for scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 28 February 2007 (EST)

: To be blunt, using miles to describe distances in space is almost painful. However, it might make sense if the audience is mainly American to use both, maybe with a slash, or put the English unit in parentheses or brackets. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::Why is measuring space in the paces of a Roman soldier any more painful that measuring it in terms of two scratches in a platinum-iridium bar at Bureau Internationale de Poids et Mesures? (Yesyesyes I ''know'' it's really the distance light travels in 1/299142857.142857 seconds...)

::If inches, slugs, and poundals are good enough for the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter, they're good enough for me! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::('''Note''' for people who don't get my nerdy joke... either because it's obscure or because it's not actually funny... slugs and poundals are now-''very''-rarely-used English-based units of mass and force that were once taught to, maybe even used by engineers. The NASA Mars Climate Orbiter was an expensive space probe that crashed on Mars because some of the computer subsystems in it used U. S. Customary units and others used metric units and the software didn't convert properly... or something like that... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:50, 1 March 2007 (EST))

::: Well, it creates cognitivie dissonance when one talks about science using other units. It is somewhat similar to using SI to talk about halachah rather than using things like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke%27zayit Ke'Zayit] (ok, maybe not the best analogy, since everyone agrees on the conversion from SI to English). As for the Mars Climate Orbiter, you do know that that was just the FNORD Illuminati coverup for what really happened to it FNORD ? Joking aside, giving it in English units only just makes headaches for citation issues and forces people to make more conversions when trying to actually use the data. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:19, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== I've started a discussion of the metric and "English" question... ==

...one the [[Talk:The_Conservapedia_Commandments#.22Metric.22_vs._.22English.22_units_in_scientific_articles.3F|Conservapedia Commandments talk page.]]

I'd like to know how people want to handle units and dimensions in scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Explanation of the "trivia"==
I don't object to removing the trivia about "mostly harmless." That was the previous prank content. (I never would have inserted it in a general article about the Earth that I was writing from scratch).
I want to explain ''why'' I left it in.
*I like to "moderate, not obliterate." If someone is trying to make a point that I disagree with, but that is valid in the sense of being a widely held point of view, I may tone down overstatement or remove clearly inaccurate factual material or label it as opinion, but I try not to remove it entirely and I try to be sure that a reader will still understand what point was being made. In this case, I was trying to transmute prank content into valid content, rather than remove it.
*For the benefit of lurking pranksters, I wanted to show that Conservapedia was aware of what they were up to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection ==

I am going to similarly object to the protection of this article. Furthermore, you've added in what seems to be an unnecessary point. Since the original article didn't discuss formation issues, it seems to me that you added it in just so you could put the quote in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:48, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:I do not think protection was necessary here. The article was not vandalised. Joshua simply edited out what he felt was an irrelevant sentence. I am unblocking this article, but before you edit it further, please discuss the changes you plan to make here. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection against evolutionist suppression of material - namely JoshuaZ ==

I protected this page. [[User:JoshuaZ]], who I believe is a vociferous evolutionist who supresses [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]] material, edited out my material which stated the following: In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [http://creationwiki.org/Astronomy_quotes] I believe this material was reasonable to include and only an unreasonable person would delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative
*I don't know if protection is necessary against a single user, but due to the contentious nature of this subject, perhaps it would be best if it were protected so that potential edits would have to be discussed first. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:58 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Age of the Earth ==

I feel that the term "most scientists" is less accurate than "evolutionists" since the first term does not make clear just who believes that the Earth is billions of years old while the second does. The term "evolutionists" also makes it clear just why they believe--in order to make it so there is enough time for macroevolution to happen. Finally, I think the term "most scientists" is biased against creation scientists. Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest, though evolutionists cannot seem to remember that. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 20:49 1 March 2007 (EST)
*I see the issue with "most scientists" but I strongly disagree with the characterization "evolutionists." The "modern synthesis" or "Neodarwinism" of the 1950s (associated with George Gaylord Simpson) was partly about bringing the paleontologists on board. Before that time, paleontologists as a group were by no means convinced of Darwinian evolution. However, they certainly were in agreement with geologists about the geological time scale and the general age of the Earth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)
* Agreeing with Dpb, while someone who accepts biological evolution will almost certainly accept the age of the earth, they are not intrinsically connected either through science or theology. For example, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe minsitries (a prominent Old Earth Creationist ministry) accepts that the earth 4.5 x 10^9 years old but does not accept biological evolution. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)
**I don't think that bringing Hugh Ross helps your case. He clearly doesn't have Biblical reasons for believing the Earth to be billions of years old, he's simply compromising the clear meaning of Genesis, much like theistic evolutionists (though he obviously doesn't compromise as much as they do). [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:56 1 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Earth

2007-03-02T02:56:28Z

Ashens: /* Age of the Earth */

==U. S. Customary units==
I don't know what Conservapedia's policy on units and dimensions is, but taking the lead from the "American" spelling policy, I have used U. S. Customary units rather than SI ("metric system") units throughout this article.

But please discuss, as SI units are more appropriate for scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 28 February 2007 (EST)

: To be blunt, using miles to describe distances in space is almost painful. However, it might make sense if the audience is mainly American to use both, maybe with a slash, or put the English unit in parentheses or brackets. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::Why is measuring space in the paces of a Roman soldier any more painful that measuring it in terms of two scratches in a platinum-iridium bar at Bureau Internationale de Poids et Mesures? (Yesyesyes I ''know'' it's really the distance light travels in 1/299142857.142857 seconds...)

::If inches, slugs, and poundals are good enough for the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter, they're good enough for me! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::('''Note''' for people who don't get my nerdy joke... either because it's obscure or because it's not actually funny... slugs and poundals are now-''very''-rarely-used English-based units of mass and force that were once taught to, maybe even used by engineers. The NASA Mars Climate Orbiter was an expensive space probe that crashed on Mars because some of the computer subsystems in it used U. S. Customary units and others used metric units and the software didn't convert properly... or something like that... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:50, 1 March 2007 (EST))

::: Well, it creates cognitivie dissonance when one talks about science using other units. It is somewhat similar to using SI to talk about halachah rather than using things like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke%27zayit Ke'Zayit] (ok, maybe not the best analogy, since everyone agrees on the conversion from SI to English). As for the Mars Climate Orbiter, you do know that that was just the FNORD Illuminati coverup for what really happened to it FNORD ? Joking aside, giving it in English units only just makes headaches for citation issues and forces people to make more conversions when trying to actually use the data. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:19, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== I've started a discussion of the metric and "English" question... ==

...one the [[Talk:The_Conservapedia_Commandments#.22Metric.22_vs._.22English.22_units_in_scientific_articles.3F|Conservapedia Commandments talk page.]]

I'd like to know how people want to handle units and dimensions in scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Explanation of the "trivia"==
I don't object to removing the trivia about "mostly harmless." That was the previous prank content. (I never would have inserted it in a general article about the Earth that I was writing from scratch).
I want to explain ''why'' I left it in.
*I like to "moderate, not obliterate." If someone is trying to make a point that I disagree with, but that is valid in the sense of being a widely held point of view, I may tone down overstatement or remove clearly inaccurate factual material or label it as opinion, but I try not to remove it entirely and I try to be sure that a reader will still understand what point was being made. In this case, I was trying to transmute prank content into valid content, rather than remove it.
*For the benefit of lurking pranksters, I wanted to show that Conservapedia was aware of what they were up to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection ==

I am going to similarly object to the protection of this article. Furthermore, you've added in what seems to be an unnecessary point. Since the original article didn't discuss formation issues, it seems to me that you added it in just so you could put the quote in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:48, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:I do not think protection was necessary here. The article was not vandalised. Joshua simply edited out what he felt was an irrelevant sentence. I am unblocking this article, but before you edit it further, please discuss the changes you plan to make here. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection against evolutionist suppression of material - namely JoshuaZ ==

I protected this page. [[User:JoshuaZ]], who I believe is a vociferous evolutionist who supresses [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]] material, edited out my material which stated the following: In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [http://creationwiki.org/Astronomy_quotes] I believe this material was reasonable to include and only an unreasonable person would delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Age of the Earth ==

I feel that the term "most scientists" is less accurate than "evolutionists" since the first term does not make clear just who believes that the Earth is billions of years old while the second does. The term "evolutionists" also makes it clear just why they believe--in order to make it so there is enough time for macroevolution to happen. Finally, I think the term "most scientists" is biased against creation scientists. Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest, though evolutionists cannot seem to remember that. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 20:49 1 March 2007 (EST)
*I see the issue with "most scientists" but I strongly disagree with the characterization "evolutionists." The "modern synthesis" or "Neodarwinism" of the 1950s (associated with George Gaylord Simpson) was partly about bringing the paleontologists on board. Before that time, paleontologists as a group were by no means convinced of Darwinian evolution. However, they certainly were in agreement with geologists about the geological time scale and the general age of the Earth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)
* Agreeing with Dpb, while someone who accepts biological evolution will almost certainly accept the age of the earth, they are not intrinsically connected either through science or theology. For example, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe minsitries (a prominent Old Earth Creationist ministry) accepts that the earth 4.5 x 10^9 years old but does not accept biological evolution. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)
**I don't think that bringing Hugh Ross helps your case. He clearly doesn't have Biblical reasons for believing the Earth to be billions of years old, he's simply compromising the clear meaning of Genesis, much like theistic evolutionists (though he obviously doesn't compromise as much as they do). [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:56 1 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Earth

2007-03-02T01:50:45Z

Ashens: new topic of discussion - age of the earth

==U. S. Customary units==
I don't know what Conservapedia's policy on units and dimensions is, but taking the lead from the "American" spelling policy, I have used U. S. Customary units rather than SI ("metric system") units throughout this article.

But please discuss, as SI units are more appropriate for scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 28 February 2007 (EST)

: To be blunt, using miles to describe distances in space is almost painful. However, it might make sense if the audience is mainly American to use both, maybe with a slash, or put the English unit in parentheses or brackets. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::Why is measuring space in the paces of a Roman soldier any more painful that measuring it in terms of two scratches in a platinum-iridium bar at Bureau Internationale de Poids et Mesures? (Yesyesyes I ''know'' it's really the distance light travels in 1/299142857.142857 seconds...)

::If inches, slugs, and poundals are good enough for the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter, they're good enough for me! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::('''Note''' for people who don't get my nerdy joke... either because it's obscure or because it's not actually funny... slugs and poundals are now-''very''-rarely-used English-based units of mass and force that were once taught to, maybe even used by engineers. The NASA Mars Climate Orbiter was an expensive space probe that crashed on Mars because some of the computer subsystems in it used U. S. Customary units and others used metric units and the software didn't convert properly... or something like that... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:50, 1 March 2007 (EST))

::: Well, it creates cognitivie dissonance when one talks about science using other units. It is somewhat similar to using SI to talk about halachah rather than using things like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke%27zayit Ke'Zayit] (ok, maybe not the best analogy, since everyone agrees on the conversion from SI to English). As for the Mars Climate Orbiter, you do know that that was just the FNORD Illuminati coverup for what really happened to it FNORD ? Joking aside, giving it in English units only just makes headaches for citation issues and forces people to make more conversions when trying to actually use the data. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:19, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== I've started a discussion of the metric and "English" question... ==

...one the [[Talk:The_Conservapedia_Commandments#.22Metric.22_vs._.22English.22_units_in_scientific_articles.3F|Conservapedia Commandments talk page.]]

I'd like to know how people want to handle units and dimensions in scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Explanation of the "trivia"==
I don't object to removing the trivia about "mostly harmless." That was the previous prank content. (I never would have inserted it in a general article about the Earth that I was writing from scratch).
I want to explain ''why'' I left it in.
*I like to "moderate, not obliterate." If someone is trying to make a point that I disagree with, but that is valid in the sense of being a widely held point of view, I may tone down overstatement or remove clearly inaccurate factual material or label it as opinion, but I try not to remove it entirely and I try to be sure that a reader will still understand what point was being made. In this case, I was trying to transmute prank content into valid content, rather than remove it.
*For the benefit of lurking pranksters, I wanted to show that Conservapedia was aware of what they were up to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection ==

I am going to similarly object to the protection of this article. Furthermore, you've added in what seems to be an unnecessary point. Since the original article didn't discuss formation issues, it seems to me that you added it in just so you could put the quote in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:48, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:I do not think protection was necessary here. The article was not vandalised. Joshua simply edited out what he felt was an irrelevant sentence. I am unblocking this article, but before you edit it further, please discuss the changes you plan to make here. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection against evolutionist suppression of material - namely JoshuaZ ==

I protected this page. [[User:JoshuaZ]], who I believe is a vociferous evolutionist who supresses [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]] material, edited out my material which stated the following: In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [http://creationwiki.org/Astronomy_quotes] I believe this material was reasonable to include and only an unreasonable person would delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Age of the Earth ==

I feel that the term "most scientists" is less accurate than "evolutionists" since the first term does not make clear just who believes that the Earth is billions of years old while the second does. The term "evolutionists" also makes it clear just why they believe--in order to make it so there is enough time for macroevolution to happen. Finally, I think the term "most scientists" is biased against creation scientists. Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest, though evolutionists cannot seem to remember that. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 20:49 1 March 2007 (EST)

Earth

2007-03-02T01:39:46Z

Ashens: replaced "most scientists" with "evolutionists" for improved accuracy

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Earth''' is the name for the planet on which humankind lives. It is the third planet from the Sun.

It orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.)

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by non-creationist geologists of the age of the Earth have varied over the years; currently, evolutionists believe the age of the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years. In addition, these particular scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

Bible scholars have also estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by R. B. Knox, [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] (usually referred to as Archbishop Ussher) in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Big Bang theory

2007-02-27T16:03:25Z

Ashens: Adding info on the controversy

The Big Bang is a theory that the universe was once in a very hot, dense state and then expanded outwards, approximately 14 billion years ago. It is the most popular theory about the origin of the universe, widely accepted in the scientific community. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]]. More evidence for the Big Bang was found by [[Edwin Hubble]] and [[Bell Labs]]. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation. This radiation was subsequently discovered and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow(Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

Young-Earth creationists hotly contest the Big Bang Theory because they believe that the Bible proves that the Earth is far younger than 14 billion years.

Talk:Baraminology

2007-02-27T15:55:53Z

Ashens:

This article is excellent, but I would like to know what sources the author used before I go in and editing. After all, perhaps he has better sources than I do. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

Dinosaur

2007-02-27T15:15:54Z

Ashens: Added into on the history of the term "dinosaur"

[[Image:StockDinosaur.jpg|right|Biblical evidence suggests that people and dinosaurs coexisted.]]

The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by creationist Richard Owen<ref>http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm</ref>, from the [[Latin]] for "terrible lizard". Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.

Darwinists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for birds, which they consider to be descended from dinosaurs). They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports their beliefs.

[[Creationist | Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[evidences]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]<ref>''Genesis'', 1:25</ref>, between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp "Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp "Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?"], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998</ref>; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp "Are dinosaurs alive today?"], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993</ref>.

Because the term only game into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref> and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are almost certainly references to dinosaurs.

==References==
<references/>

Dinosaur

2007-02-27T15:04:51Z

Ashens: Slight clarifications to Darwinists' and creationists' beliefs

[[Image:StockDinosaur.jpg|right|Biblical evidence suggests that people and dinosaurs coexisted.]]

From the [[Latin]] for "terrible lizard", '''dinosaurs''' were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.

Darwinists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for birds, which they consider to be descended from dinosaurs). They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports their beliefs.

[[Creationist | Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[evidences]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]<ref>''Genesis'', 1:25</ref>, between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp "Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp "Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?"], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998</ref>; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp "Are dinosaurs alive today?"], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993</ref>.

Although dinosaurs are not explicitly mentioned in the [[Bible]] by the word "dinosaur," they are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref> and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are almost certainly references to dinosaurs.

==References==
<references/>

Intelligent design

2007-02-25T15:52:20Z

Ashens: clarified criticism in first paragraph

Intelligent Design is the theory that all biological complexity must derive from a non-human designer (such as [[God]]), rather than the random process of [[evolution]]. Critics often assert that it is Creationism-lite, in that it is a means of sneaking creationism into schools without overt religious implications. Proponents of intelligent design argue that the Designer need not ''necessarily'' be God, because that would make ID a religious theory that could not be taught in public schools until the United States once again has a Godly government. Instead, the Designer could also be, for example, a space alien with the power to create the universe.

Proponents of Intelligent Design generally adopt the 'argument from incredulity'. They argue, essentially, that the complexity of living organisms is such that it could only come from an intelligent 'designer', without much justification other than their own inability to understand how evolution could create the same complexity.

The other major argument in the Intelligent Design arsenal is a variation of the incredulity argument, in that supporters frequently mischaracterize evolution as being a wholly random process, and that random processes. Intelligent Design proponents misunderstand, or at least seem to misunderstand, the effects of the iteration of natural selection in a particular environment over hundreds or thousands of generations.

The theory of Intelligent Design has little or no support outside the [[United States]], because most other developed nations are too far down the path of un-Godliness and anti-Christianity. However, Intelligent Design is also very popular in Turkey, even though the Turks are Moslems.

User talk:Ashens

2007-02-25T15:18:15Z

Ashens:

User talk:Ashens

2007-02-24T06:37:48Z

Ashens:

User talk:Ashens

2007-02-24T06:04:05Z

Ashens: