Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Christians, the time is now to resurrect your faith

2007-05-23T12:56:21Z

Bob2: Replacing page with 'This is not an encyclopedia article.'

This is not an encyclopedia article.

Dog

2007-04-08T23:49:35Z

Bob2:

'''Dogs''', colloquially known as "man's best friend", are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]] (given the scientific name Canis lupus familiaris), divided into a multitude of different breeds all capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example). They are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for upwards of ten thousand years; in Biblical times, they had already been coexisting with humans long enough for it to be regarded as the natural order of things.

It is likely, based on genetic evidence, that the oldest breeds of dog originate in [[Asia]], and that thus the domestic dog originated there; similar research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers of the [[America]]s brought dogs of some sort with them.

Dogs are used for many purposes

*Guarding property and livestock.

*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].

*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain rescue.

*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].

*Providing assistance to blind and deaf people.

*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.

*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges and dogcarts.

* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles and walk the tightrope.

And historically,

* For fighting, now illegal in most places.

*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs are kept for companionship only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and livestock.

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Mammals]]

Dog

2007-04-08T23:49:20Z

Bob2:

Conservapedia:Christians, the time is now to resurrect your faith

2007-04-07T17:28:12Z

Bob2: Replacing page with 'This is not an encyclopedia article. Please delete.'

This is not an encyclopedia article. Please delete.

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-04-05T15:02:17Z

Bob2: Before/after the fall

This article is in desperate need of more references. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:And desperate need of work. This article is lacking in any real information and cites questionable sources. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want '''"their facts"'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

::@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should now be available for editing by registered users. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's funny that you'd ask that considering some of your previous comments regarding liberals and athetists and their beliefs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herbivorous? ==

While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect oddity? ==

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the ''talk'' page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we mean NOW? ==
I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) "'''are''' actually vegetarians" and that Scorpioman says "they certainly '''seem''' adept hunters." Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See [[Dinosaur]] and its sources, especially [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, well. I've seen the conservapedia article before, but I hadn't clicked the link you provided. It's hard to make a reasoned intelligent response really. There's so little connection to reality. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sid, don't be absurd. Of ''course'' we know they're dead. Stop trying to insult us. But since you're going to be so picky, shall I say "It certainly seems that they ''were'' adept hunters"? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, stealthily sneaking up on an unsuspecting CABBAGE! [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll gladly include you in the list of people who know they're dead, but quite a few people here and out there seem to argue that they might still exist. Or at least they try to spread as much doubt as possible. My usage of "they" had been somewhat broad, though. Honest apologies for that. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then somebody should change this locked article so that it reads "were actually vegetarians". It'll still be wrong, but at least that little bit of grammar would be correct. You might want to change the bit about the teeth as well. As far as the "they believe" and "we believe" stuff is concerned - I note that the Dinosaur article talks about creationists believing that dinosaurs "still roam the earth today". I'm afraid I don't know you - could you tell me who you speak for when you say "we"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Maybe YEC folks think we were ALL born yesterday? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Far weirder thing is that the first sentence states that they ''were'' carnivorous while the entire rest of the article argues that they ''weren't'' carnivorous. Like, make up your mind, please? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

== Bible ==

''"Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."''

Aren't all Christians Bible-believing? Or am I mistaken and there are some Christians that don't believe in the Bible, Jesus and God.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

You are mistaken. Most Christians, including catholics, eastern orthodox, and mainline protestants respect the bible, but do not take it as literal truth. The loud evangelical literalists in the states are the minority of Christians. Though Conservapedia is built for the wacky fringes, not for conservatives as I had previously thought.

Perhaps we should rename it to "whackopedia", though that name may be taken by a different sort of project!

:"Whackopedia" sounds like a great title of a parody of Wikpedia, although there already is one: [[Uncyclopedia]]. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 14:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article Protection==

I unlocked this article earlier in the hopes of a well-written, accurate entry being created. If the "evolutionist"/creationist text keeps being replaced without accurate sources, this article will be protected again. I don't support the locking of articles, but if need be, it will be done. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diet ==

I've added a section on tyrannosaur's diet. If anything is missing, feel free to add. Most of it is there already, but if there are some other aspects about this creature's diet that need to be there, please add them in. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Did not Live?? ==

I see that there is a line under the alternative theories which states the animal: "either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history." While I can (just about)imagine somebody believing that they co-existed with humans - are there really people who simply refuse to believe they existed at all? The bones come from ... where? in this case? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:<s>That section needs reworking because it doesn't make sense at the moment</s>.
:Ok I've done it now. I left that view in that they didn't exist - YECs used to have that opinion, though I couldn't find a decent source for it. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 17:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I've never heard that argument put forth by anyone. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 18:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. ==

Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. That was the reason for the rollback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Erm, OK, which rule was broken, and what ''scientific'' evidence is there that T-rex lived about 6,000 years ago? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Everything you post must be true and verifiable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::'''''IT IS TRUE'''''. Me saying that there is not scientific evidence to support it, and then not citing the nonexistent scientific evidence, affirms the point made. It is ''your'' job to support your views by adding citations that there ''is'' some ''scientific'' evidence to support it. Though there isn't. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can't bloody prove either viewpoint. That's what NPOV is for. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Conservative''', I believe that you were too quick and too judgemental here. ''Before'' you accuse someone of breaking a rule, you should establish and demonstrate that they ''have'' broken a rule. That he had broken a rule was not self-evident, and it could have been inadvertent or through a misunderstanding. You should engage in discussion before throwing accusations.

'''Hojimachongtalk''', your claim that there is very little evidence is ''not'' a fact, but the view of anti-creationists. Creationists point out that both evolutionists and creationists have the ''same'' evidence, but the difference is in how one interprets the evidence. To use an unrelated example, the Grand Canyon is evidence of erosion on a large scale. Uniformitarians interpret this as the result of a little bit of water (the Colorado River) acting over a long period of time. Creationists interpret it as the result of a lot of water (e.g. flood runoff) acting over a short period of time. Same evidence, different interpretations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:For the last time, ''I never said it wasn't a fact''. I said that ''most mainstream scientists'' (you know, the evil, heathen, hellbound atheist ones) feel that the view is ''not supported by enough evidence''. They certainly regard it in that manner. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=65031&oldid=64969 Your edit] had the article saying, "this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence". There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong ==

Hojimachong is being quite uncivil. Here is what he wrote to me: "It is a fact that there is very little ''scientific'' evidence. '''Quote the Bible all you want''', but it does not encompass the generally accepted scientific view, which is that T-rex lived several million years ago. It specifically said, ''backed up by very little scientific evidence'', which is true. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Explain how in any stretch of the imagination this is incivil. I am voicing a completely valid concern (your deletion of factual material). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - why are you whining? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Let's not argue about who's civil, uncivil, whining, etc. Free pizza and root beer to all who agree. :-)
:::Sounds good to me. Now wheres the <s>root</s> beer and pizza? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Extinction==

:This view is regarded with much skepticism by people outside the young earth creationist community, who feel it is not supported by enough evidence.

I'd like to see any 'scientific' references related to estimates of how long ago t-rex went extinct. I gather Young Earth creationism is at odds with mainstream biology on this. A good encyclopedia would describe this dispute clearly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::The general consensus among scientists is that T-Rex, along with nearly all other land dinosaurs, became extinct during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, about 65.5 million years ago. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== YEC theories ==

One of the mentioned "theories" of Young Earth Creationists is that T-Rex "did not live" -- I am not sure how that theory works. Who created the skeletons of T-Rex, then? Have a look at the [http://creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurus_rex Creation Wiki] page on T-Rex; perhaps it might be of some value as a model. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Some think that the Earth was created "with age", seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether "theory" was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Can anyone name me ''one'' creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not a view found in the organisations. Rather it's a theological opinion which is occassional formed by individuals. It's crops up on occassion, so I think we should mention it, but it shouldn't be called mainstream or common. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::As long as the qualifications that you put there are quite clear in the article, I guess I could go along with that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

The linked references to the Creation Science section include on that mentions Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster in passing, so the mention of these in the article -- if this reference is retained -- don't seem to be entirely groundless. Also, I would note that most of the articles cited are not themselves sources, but articles citing other articles (e.g. ''Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10'', which does not seem to be available itself anywhere online, is the source for one of the referenced article's claim of human and dinosaur footprints being found together. It should also be noted that the items referenced so far are general essays on pro-Creation and Christian websites.[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Before/after the fall ==

If T-Rex lived in the garden of Eden, he must have been a vegetarian rather than a scavenger since there was no death in the garden, right? If so, it looks like God created T-Rex knowing that man would fall and the world would need some predators. I wonder what Adam thought when he saw those huge teeth and massive claws. I wonder if he had some thought in the back of his head that something was off?

Also, is there a consensus on whether T-Rex made it to the Ark? I've read that they became extinct because they didn't make it to the Ark, but other sources say that ALL animals made it to the ark and T-Rex would then have become extinct sometime after the flood - perhaps because of overhunting (That is Kent Hovind's view).

Any thoughts on the above? [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 11:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T18:18:49Z

Bob2: /* You're incredible */

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

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

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

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

== Gospel of Thomas ==

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

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

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

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

== reply ==

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

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

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

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

== [[Scientology]] ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Theory ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== You're incredible ==

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

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

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

:::Are you guys serious? Ames is clearly one of the better personalities on this site. You're alienating one of the better editors Conservapedia could ever have. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 13:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, though it is a little amusing to see sysops slowly turn this site into a parody of itself. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 13:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

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

:::::Maybe you should block yourself, Schlafly. Edit wars require more than one actor. You're just as blameworthy as Ames. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

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

:: You should have tried to work with him instead of giving him a time out. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 14:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T17:57:50Z

Bob2: /* You're incredible */

Tyrannosaurus

2007-03-26T15:52:36Z

Bob2:

[[Image:trex.jpg|right||'Tyrannosaurus rex promoting The Bible']]

The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] on the other hand believe that they became extinct sometime since the [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]], which was approximately 4,500 years ago.

==History==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

==Young Earth Creationist Theory==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth creationists]] have alternate theories to the existance of the Tyrannosaurus rex, and other dinosaurs in general, that either it did not live, or that it lived at the same time as humans at some point in history. For a more complete discussion, see the article on ''[[Dinosaur#Creationist_Scientists_Perspective|Dinosaurs]]''

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it helps them see their prey from far off, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards a change occured that caused T-rex to be unable to digest plants and therefore had to kill and eat other creatures for food.

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Physical Quantities

2007-03-24T04:16:29Z

Bob2: removed liberal bias

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+ Physical Quantities and Their Base Units
|-
! Physical Quantity !! Base English Unit
|-
| Mass || slug (sl)
|-
| Distance || foot (ft)
|-
| Volume || gallon (gal)
|-
| Time || second (s)
|}<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>