Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?

2008-02-21T05:18:20Z

Cranky Joe: /* Conservative */

==Conservative==
Am I to understand that not all conservatives are Young Earth Creationists? --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:18, 21 February 2008 (EST)

==Young Earth Creationist==

I would have to say YEC. Most of the science articles have a YEC POV at the bottom. If Conservapedia was representing the conservative POV then you would not see YEC POVS for everything without seeing some other conservative POV.
(comment from [[User:Tims]] --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:35, 10 May 2007 (EDT))

: This just all goes back to the problem of using terms like conservative and liberal as blanket terms. Obviously not all conservatives are YEC, but the adminstration of this site appears to believe the word conservative encompasses certain beliefs and there is no grey areas. And I imagine in doing so they will alienate a good chunk of the population who consider themselves conservative.

:But the fact of the matter is, it's their site, they can call it what they want and run it how they want. People can get on here and post all they want about how it's not fair and balanced, how it is irresponsible, etc, but it isn't going to make a lick of difference for how this site is managed no matter how valid the complaints are. The only real way to effect any kind of change on a site like this is if you are conservative, but bothered by the rampant YEC articles, or whatever, is to just state how this doesn't match your personal ideologies and and walk away. I believe the atmosphere is too unstable to actually convert someone, and the end result will be like-minded people running a wiki for like-minded folks, and there is nothing wrong with that. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Day". Could the 7 "days " in which God created the earth (Genesis, English translation, ? from Hebrew, from?)
have as accurately been translated as "epoch" or "period of time"? Is the only valid translation "one revolution of the earth"? If God's "day" could be a billion years, 365 billion revolutions of the earth (and I do not see why not), all conflict with science on this point disappears. LA Times recent selection to put-down conservatives becomes moot.
[User: Howard Long, conservative scientist, June 22 2007 9AM PDT

::To answer your question, the answer is "no", because the Hebrew word used for "day" here means a literal, 24-hour day. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 17:17, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

::What about the passage in the the Bible about (paraphrasing, because I don't know the exact verse) "a thousand years is as a day int the mind of God, and a day a thousand years"?--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:45, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What about it? I think we all use metaphors sometimes. But that doesn't mean everything we say is a metaphor. The question is one of context - does the context indicate that the passage is meant to be a metaphor? Besides - it wasn't God himself saying that - it was Peter talking about God, and the passage in question was about the end of the world, not about creation (2 Peter 3:8). [[User:CobraA1|CobraA1]] 14:51, 4 December 2007 (EST)

User:Cranky Joe/Key-lime pie

2008-01-10T05:27:50Z

Cranky Joe: New page: This article probably wouldn't pass in the mainspace because conservapedia is far too livberal, so I've put it in a "subpage" of mine. ---- '''Key-lime pie''' is a fruit [[p...

This article probably wouldn't pass in the mainspace because conservapedia is far too livberal, so I've put it in a "subpage" of mine.
----
'''Key-lime pie''' is a [[homosexual|fruit]] [[pie]] made out of keys, limes, and pie. The first record Conservapedia has of apple pies dates from 1967 in [[San Francisco]]. When homosexuals first came to [[America]], they brought fruity things with them, and along with the lime tree, recipes for making homosexual pies. In the gay colonies of San Francisco, most limes that were grown were made into drinks. American key-lime pie recipes date back to the 1700's, but have not really since risen greatly in popularity with REAL Americans.

Because of their popularity in California, key-lime pies are often associated with things uniquely homosexual. For example, something can be said to be as "fruity as key-lime pie".

==References ==
My reference is my political views, and I stick to 'em. Also I dont like gay marriage or lime pies because I think tey're homosexual.

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2008-01-08T01:35:53Z

Cranky Joe:

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}
: So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Why Reason?

2008-01-03T11:51:36Z

Cranky Joe: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Essay:Stem Cells

2008-01-03T11:46:15Z

Cranky Joe:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.
[[User:Cthx]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
::"Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life" How can you say something like that? To me that is sicker than any story of the Holocaust or the Gulags. A fertilized egg under normal conditions becomes more cells, and even more cells. It is simple science. What do you think you are? You are a group of cells with just a few more years progress. Just because you may die in a car crash tommorow doesn't mean I'll shoot you now and harvest your body parts for someone in need of a heart or a lung. How do you justify that your life is more important than someone elses? God created all human beings with worth and dignity from the moment of conception. Also just because, "Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away" doesn't make anything right. Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? These are HUMAN BEINGS that we are talking about. It is not our right or privelage to make the decision of life or death for them. Isn't that what a murderer is, someone who decides that another human is not deserving of life? --[[User:CRD|CRD]] 21:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that abortion is wrong, as it is the taking of a human life. However, using discarded embryos and aborted fetuses for stem cell research is not the same as condoning abortion. If the embryo or fetus is no longer alive, harvesting its stem cells is extremely similar to using the organs of a deceased person to save a living one, or using a cadaver for scientific research. --[[User:ac09]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered ''en masse'' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.
*Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few:
::::The ability to feel pain
::::The ability to think
::::The ability to have emotions
Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human.

*But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you ''know'' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. ''Potential'' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's ''just not right''?! If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells.

Q.E.D.
[[User:Cthx]]

: "By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder" There is no potential that a woman will get pregnant walking down the street. A human being is concieved through sexual interaction (Bio 101) and becomes and embryo and thus an infant and then an adolescant, etc. That is the normal path of human development. There is no "potential" involved. Uninhibited by natural or artificial means that embreyo becomes an adult like you and me. Just because it is not at that stage yet does not mean it does not have the same value as a human life. In a casualty report, do you count the children as half a person because they are not yet quite as developed as you are? That is the same ignorant line of thought that has been fought for years under the cover of racism. People were saying that because you do not look like me, I have the right to kill and test on you like a lab rat (yes, test, think Hitler). There is no "low-value embryo", you were at one point an embreyo, if someone had decided for you that your life was not important (because I can throw you in a freezer and use you for science) then you would not even be here today breathing with a set of lungs or thinking with that brain that came from those first egg and sperm. If you are a God fearing man (I make no assumption), do you believe that you are not given the grace of God and the right to Heaven until you are fully capable of grasping and believing your faith? If so, half the world would be out of luck! Our God is a loving and unconditional God and he loves us from the moment of conception, where from that point he will guide our lives in the direction he intends it to go. Either through science or religion (I believe them to be one in the same because God created it all) an embreyo MUST be considered to be a human being, otherwise you are making the grave mistake of denying the life of another human being, which is known as murder.--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 23:11, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Fairly recently it was discovered that stem cells could be obtained from umbilical cords, pleasing both sides of this debate, I would assume. Does anyone object to this? [[User:HKK]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies. Seriously? If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic. If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better. [[User:Cthx]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especialy when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less neccessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

Great! [[User:Cthx]]

==Rational Use==

I'm not so keen on creating an embryo specifically for the purposes of destroying it in order to harvest the stem cells. It just seems to be in poor taste, to be honest. I see nothing wrong, however, with parents donating unused embryos for research, or with fertility clinics donating abandoned embryos.

Many embryos have been "abandoned" by their parents. That is to say, the treatment the embryos were created for succeeded in producing a pregnancy. Fertility treatments usually require the production of several embryos, only some of which will be implanted (they sometimes keep a few left over in case they need to try a second time). When embryos are left over, the parents have 4 options: discard them, donate them to other couples, pay several hundred dollars per year to keep them in storage, or donate them for medical research. However, often the parents will start by paying for storage and then disappear; the payments stop and the embryos are abandoned. This accounts for approximately 10% of the embryos currently in storage.

Most fertility clinics, and their owners, are uncertain about the ethical and legal ambiguities involved with abandoned embryo retention/destruction, so they will take on the burden of financing the continued storage themselves.

Consider these points:
*1) Whenever an in vitro fertilization procedure takes place, several embryos are created, only one (or two or mmmaybe three) of which will ever produce a fetus. So, any time these treatments take place, several embryos are created for the purpose of eventually being destroyed. There's no way around this.
*2) No one in this thread, that I have seen at least, has argued that the in vitro fertilization procedure itself is unethical, therefore there is clearly some level of acceptance of the fact that embryos will be created for the purpose of being destroyed. (Now, if you want to argue that IVF itself is an unethical procedure, that's another story.)
*3) An embryo that is destroyed has served no useful function. It has not produced a fetus, it has not furthered the cause of humanity; it was essentially created and destroyed in vain.
*4) Plenty of embryos are already being donated for the purposes of stem cell research. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. (The one restriction is that Federal Government funds can not be used to support it.)
*5) An embryo donated for research has served some purpose. Its existence was not in vain and it stands the chance of possibly contributing to major medical breakthroughs.

Those points being made, I fail to see why abandoned embryos should not be donated. Their parents gave up their right to decide the embryos' fates and essentially left it up to the clinics. I would argue that the fate of an abandoned embryo falls to the owner(s) of the clinic they are stored at, and any of the 4 options I listed above (destruction, adoption, continued storage, research donation) should be available to the clinic the same as it would be to the parents.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 10:35, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Jesus specifically forbade the use of stem cells in the bible, along with abortions, [[gay]] people, and rock music that isn't [[Ted Nugent]]. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:46, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-01-03T11:43:23Z

Cranky Joe:

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articals( the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practiclly no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been ANd stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?

2007-07-24T03:30:32Z

Cranky Joe: /* No! */

{{debate}}

In other words, if the Bible started with the story of Abraham and never mentioned how the earth was created, would anyone consider the idea that the earth was not millions of years old? Or does a desire to prove the Bible correct form the basis of creation science? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==YES!==
Young earth is a fact that is validated by an unbiased and accurate assesment of the evidence. The bible may have provided the clues but it stands on its own.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, it's not. If it were, then it would be the scientific consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It isn't, purely for the reason that that is not what the evidence indicates. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

::Let's not forget, Rebiu: The claim isn't only that the earth is 6,000 years old. It's that earth and the universe formed ''contemporaneously'' 6000 years ago. If that were true, the most distant stars would be no more than 6000 light years away. However, the most distant stars are over 13 billion light years away. Either the speed of light is much, much faster than we measured--over 2.1 million times faster, in fact--or earth and those galaxies didn't form at the same time. But even if our instruments really were so clumbsy as to err over 2 million fold, the young earth theory would still have to explain how the planet managed to cool from a molten state so quickly. If the answer is that god just zapped it into being, then Cristians don't have to explain any observable data whatever. The only question I would then press is why god gave man the faculty of reason and the curiosity to explore if we needn't look any further than our Bibles. [[User:Whomever21|whomever]] 11:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==No!==

In the bible, outside of Genesis, God rhetorically inquires of Job if he was present when God laid the foundations of the Earth, and the theological point he is trying to make is that the earth predates man by many years and includes wonders and mysteries that Job could not even begin to imagine. Based on this evidence, it is likely that an old earth doctrine would have been established. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No, because if it isn't in the Bible it isn't true. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
The questions seem to contradict eachother, so I'll post here. If there was no creation story, then the literal biblists wouldn't immediately throw out all the scientific evidence of evolution. Most likely they'd accept it and go on with their lives. But since the story does exist, they feel it necessary to accept this as the literal truth and refuse to believe anything contrary to what they read. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes, but not anymore==

I think that prior to ways of interpreting the evidence that led to the understanding of a very old earth, most cultures would not have thought the earth was much older than their oldest records or legends - they would have no reason to do so. With modern scientific interpretations and more evidence of an old earth, a literal interpretation of the Creation in Genesis becomes more difficult to hold, and if it were not there (the Creation story), even fundamental literalists would have no reason not to accept that God made the earth a lot longer ago then previously thought. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

=I don't believe in Young Earth Creationists=

It must be a joke. No one is that bonkers.

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-24T03:28:24Z

Cranky Joe: /* No */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

File talk:Reagan1.jpg

2007-07-23T19:17:01Z

Cranky Joe: New page: What a proud American Patriot. RIP President Ronald Reagan. --~~~~

What a proud American Patriot. RIP President Ronald Reagan. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 15:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?

2007-07-23T18:44:38Z

Cranky Joe:

I can't figure out this one, and I hope someone here can. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Since the regions of the world where oil is available have historically been unstable long before the discovery or usefulness of petroleum was discovered, one can only conclude that God likes to see people kill each other. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why can't people, who happen to live in oil rich places, just get along?

Why would God want us to use a limited and polluting substance as fuel?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Maybe God's chosen people are the Arabs living in the oil rich places.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 22:14, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did God create stars that we can only see and not reach? The authors question should be moved to Funny, maybe? on the debate forum.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The middle east was not particularly unstable during its long years of Ottoman dominance (positively tranquil compared to Europe in the same period), or even in the interwar period - it's current reputation as a problematic area postdates the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938. Texas and Alaska are obviously stable, and the North Sea area is not noted as a hotbed of agitation. [[User:MississippiMud|MisMud]] 23:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the oil causes the political instability.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Nah, that's just crazy, it's much more likely it's all part of the Homosexual Agenda!

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:The question should be, [[Why are places with immense natural resources politically unstable?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Greed? (Duh!)

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

I think this question is based on an assumption that shouldn't be being made in a christian worldview: That God creates natural resources when they are discovered, rather than having created them in the beginning along with everything else.
As such, a sensible explanation within the christian worldview would be the fact that the middle eastern nations with oil are in many cases in the area that the Garden of Eden is speculated to have been and in which the Jews (god's chosen people) existed. A concentration of oil in such a place would fit well with this theory, especially if you accept Flood Geology.
Of course, as an atheist, I think the most sensible explanation is simply that the majority of the Earth's landmass has been through political instability in the past 100 years, and in places with large natural resources the instability is likely to be maintained by competing claimants because any given stable situation would favour one of them, and thus the others will fight it.
--[[User:Kingreaper|Kingreaper]] 13:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Another easy debate question. Its to make the richer, Christianer, and therefore better countries (i.e., The USA), are motivated to straighten up the blaspheming Arab countries. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2007-07-23T18:42:57Z

Cranky Joe:

{{debate}}

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Conservatism" is about conserving things, such as traditions. Regardless of what it stands for right now in the US, conservatism has always meant trying to preserve order, protect the country, protect the ruling class, and protect a country's traditions. Every country has some traditional religion, and the conservatives (i.e. right side of the political spectrum) usually want to protect that.--[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I get the sense that conservatives us the Religion more because that is often all they have.--[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This question is obvious. It's because God favors conservatives, and therefore, the rich. Debate closed. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-07-23T18:36:31Z

Cranky Joe: /* Definite YES. */

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is just as false and liberal as such devious religions as Satanism, Atheism, Arabism, and pro-choicism. Is it simply a coincedence that "''[[science]]''" (which is known to be false, because it opposes [[The Bible]]) appears in the word "'''''Scien'''tology''"? All Scientologists must be converted to Christianity NOW. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.

Capital punishment

2007-07-23T18:30:21Z

Cranky Joe: /* See also */

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as '''capital crimes''', and tend to be grave [[crimes against persons]] (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]] or [[rape]]) or [[treason]].

== In the world today ==
Of the developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] have capital punishment. [[Western Europe]] and [[Canada]] no longer allow its use. It is also practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on the [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many other countries which are not yet considered to be developed.<ref>EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000.

=== In the United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis, and several states' laws do not allow for executions.
The practice appears to be on the wane, as appeals and stays of execution create a backlog on death row. [[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws. One man has been on death row in [[Texas]] for 31 years. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. [[Nebraska]] is the only state of these that does not have lethal injection. [[Electrocution]] is the official method of execution there. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===In Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canada since 1998.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)

Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

<ref>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

==Deterrent==

Studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref>

One primary argument against deterrence holds that no one committing a murder expects to be caught. Therefore, the murder is committed irrespective of the consequences.

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

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

2007-03-14T05:04:15Z

Cranky Joe: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''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.

==='''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?

=== 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.

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:59:31Z

Cranky Joe: how foolish of me

I think you might want to take some of the more... opinionated stuff off of your userpage... it's blatantly offensive for no reason. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Cranky Joe, your page sounded like a liberal's caricature of conservatives. I hope I'm wrong and, if so, welcome. But if I'm right, be sure to look at the statutes at the top of the [[Main_Page]] before you make edits here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I take offense at that. Just because I'm not one of today's idealistic "moderates" or "bipartisans" you hear about in the liberal media doesn't mean that I'm not %110 purebread genuine conservative, and my rights to free speech will not be supressed just because some find me too "radical". --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Besides, I even wrote an article: [[Apple pie]]. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Abide by our [[rules]], please. Free speech here is limited by those rules. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought this was a wiki for promoting conservative agenda, not one for "facts". Well, scientists will tell you that a round earth and the theory of evolution are "facts". I do not think that I have vandalized anything, nor put inapropriate or obscene content here. If I come across as a bit brash, it's just my nature; I do not mean to offend. We are, after all, all Christian brothers. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]]'s free speech seems limited to his user page, which I believe is not against the rules. "6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." Is it just me or has he done nothing wrong? I certainly don't believe so as his user page is not an encyclopedia entry and accurately portrays his views so that others may clearly understand his perspective. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I believe that my edits to the article about the patriot [[Richard Nixon]] (and possibly my edits to [[Apple pie]], an article I wrote by myself) which are controvercial here. Although I will leave if my own home page comes under attack. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well I sincerely hope that you user page does not come under attack as that would be consider a clear act of censorship. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Was it not Thomas Jefferson who garanteed us the right to free speech in the first ammendment to the [[Declaration of Independence]]? --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: CrankyJoe, you sound like [[Stephen Colbert]]...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Just because Colbert uses parody and humor to further the liberal agenda does not mean that some people are actually very conservative and patriotic. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, CrankyJoe, you do sound like someone trying to be funny. And your misspellings plus the late hour make me wonder if it isn't best if you signed off. Someone has already had to revert your sarcastic, silly edit to [[Richard Nixon]]. One more edit like that and your account will be permanently blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I will not make anymore "radical" edits to encyclopedic articles. However, I will voice my opinion in the debate topics and on my own home page. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:36:17Z

Cranky Joe:

I think you might want to take some of the more... opinionated stuff off of your userpage... it's blatantly offensive for no reason. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Cranky Joe, your page sounded like a liberal's caricature of conservatives. I hope I'm wrong and, if so, welcome. But if I'm right, be sure to look at the statutes at the top of the [[Main_Page]] before you make edits here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I take offense at that. Just because I'm not one of today's idealistic "moderates" or "bipartisans" you hear about in the liberal media doesn't mean that I'm not %110 purebread genuine conservative, and my rights to free speech will not be supressed just because some find me too "radical". --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Besides, I even wrote a article: [[Apple pie]]. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Abide by our [[rules]], please. Free speech here is limited by those rules. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought this was a wiki for promoting conservative agenda, not one for "facts". Well, scientists will tell you that a round earth and the theory of evolution are "facts". I do not think that I have vandalized anything, nor put inapropriate or obscene content here. If I come across as a bit brash, it's just my nature; I do not mean to offend. We are, after all, all Christian brothers. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]]'s free speech seems limited to his user page, which I believe is not against the rules. "6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." Is it just me or has he done nothing wrong? I certainly don't believe so as his user page is not an encyclopedia entry and accurately portrays his views so that others may clearly understand his perspective. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I believe that my edits to the article about the patriot [[Richard Nixon]] (and possibly my edits to [[Apple pie]], an article I wrote by myself) which are controvercial here. Although I will leave if my own home page comes under attack. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well I sincerely hope that you user page does not come under attack as that would be consider a clear act of censorship. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Was it not Thomas Jefferson who garanteed us the right to free speech in the first ammendment to the [[Declaration of Independence]]? --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: CrankyJoe, you sound like [[Stephen Colbert]]...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Just because Colbert uses parody and humor to further the liberal agenda does not mean that some people are actually very conservative and patriotic. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, CrankyJoe, you do sound like someone trying to be funny. And your misspellings plus the late hour make me wonder if it isn't best if you signed off. Someone has already had to revert your sarcastic, silly edit to [[Richard Nixon]]. One more edit like that and your account will be permanently blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I will not make anymore "radical" edits to encyclopedic articles. However, I will voice my opinion in the debate topics and on my own home page. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?

2007-03-14T04:32:33Z

Cranky Joe: /* Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time */

==Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time==

*The phrase "perpetual motion" is old-fashioned language. It does not mean simply something that stays in motion forever. This might be theoretically possible—it at least does not violate conservation of energy. But the phrase "perpetual motion" uses "motion" in an older sense to mean motor or engine, and it means something that can deliver energy—to run an automobile, for example—without requiring any external source of energy, such as gasoline. It means something for nothing.

:'''COUNTER:''' By "perpetual motion machine" I mean simply what the term says: remain in motion perpetually. I'm not proposing running "something for nothing," which is obviously impossible. I'm proposing running something indefinitely, like the clock you describe. Why is that impossible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 31 December 2006 (EST)

::I don't think it '''is''' impossible. I don't understand enough about the entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to be absolutely sure. And the Clock of the Long Now isn't expected to run forwever, just for ten thousand years.

:::By the definition of 'perpetually moving' it is indeed possible: the simple hydrogen atom becomes a working prototype. But the term is generally used to describe a machine that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics: in any closed system useful energy will dissipate. Indeed any engine more efficient than a Carnot Engine is by definition a perpetual motion machine [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html (Carnot Cycle)]. [[User:Airor|Airor]] 22 Feb 2007 2:22PM PST

::The "perpetual motion machines" or ''perpetuum mobiles''—the gadgets that the patent office refuses to review—all were intended to generate energy from nothing. They got to be a problem because inventors were constantly claiming to have found it and lining up investors. Often there was deliberate fraud, but sometimes there was just innocent ignorance involved. Usually there was either a hidden source of energy (e.g. in frauds, like the Keeley Motor) or the inventor believe he was producing energy when he was just releasing stored energy.

*For an interesting example of an attempt to build a machine that will stay in motion for a long time, see [http://www.longnow.org/projects/clock/ The Clock of the Long Now]. This is a serious effort to encourage long-term thinking by solving the engineering ''and social'' problems involved in building a clock will actually run for ten thousand years.

*It is not impossible becuase The Lord could make a perpetual motion device if he so wished it. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:30:23Z

Cranky Joe:

I think you might want to take some of the more... opinionated stuff off of your userpage... it's blatantly offensive for no reason. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Cranky Joe, your page sounded like a liberal's caricature of conservatives. I hope I'm wrong and, if so, welcome. But if I'm right, be sure to look at the statutes at the top of the [[Main_Page]] before you make edits here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I take offense at that. Just because I'm not one of today's idealistic "moderates" or "bipartisans" you hear about in the liberal media doesn't mean that I'm not %110 purebread genuine conservative, and my rights to free speech will not be supressed just because some find me too "radical". --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Besides, I even wrote a article: [[Apple pie]]. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Abide by our [[rules]], please. Free speech here is limited by those rules. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought this was a wiki for promoting conservative agenda, not one for "facts". Well, scientists will tell you that a round earth and the theory of evolution are "facts". I do not think that I have vandalized anything, nor put inapropriate or obscene content here. If I come across as a bit brash, it's just my nature; I do not mean to offend. We are, after all, all Christian brothers. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]]'s free speech seems limited to his user page, which I believe is not against the rules. "6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." Is it just me or has he done nothing wrong? I certainly don't believe so as his user page is not an encyclopedia entry and accurately portrays his views so that others may clearly understand his perspective. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I believe that my edits to the article about the patriot [[Richard Nixon]] (and possibly my edits to [[Apple pie]], an article I wrote by myself) which are controvercial here. Although I will leave if my own home page comes under attack. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well I sincerely hope that you user page does not come under attack as that would be consider a clear act of censorship. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Was it not Thomas Jefferson who garanteed us the right to free speech in the first ammendment to the [[Declaration of Independence]]? --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: CrankyJoe, you sound like [[Stephen Colbert]]...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Just because Colbert uses parody and humor to further the liberal agenda does not mean that some people are actually very conservative and patriotic. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:26:43Z

Cranky Joe:

I think you might want to take some of the more... opinionated stuff off of your userpage... it's blatantly offensive for no reason. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Cranky Joe, your page sounded like a liberal's caricature of conservatives. I hope I'm wrong and, if so, welcome. But if I'm right, be sure to look at the statutes at the top of the [[Main_Page]] before you make edits here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I take offense at that. Just because I'm not one of today's idealistic "moderates" or "bipartisans" you hear about in the liberal media doesn't mean that I'm not %110 purebread genuine conservative, and my rights to free speech will not be supressed just because some find me too "radical". --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Besides, I even wrote a article: [[Apple pie]]. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Abide by our [[rules]], please. Free speech here is limited by those rules. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought this was a wiki for promoting conservative agenda, not one for "facts". Well, scientists will tell you that a round earth and the theory of evolution are "facts". I do not think that I have vandalized anything, nor put inapropriate or obscene content here. If I come across as a bit brash, it's just my nature; I do not mean to offend. We are, after all, all Christian brothers. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]]'s free speech seems limited to his user page, which I believe is not against the rules. "6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." Is it just me or has he done nothing wrong? I certainly don't believe so as his user page is not an encyclopedia entry and accurately portrays his views so that others may clearly understand his perspective. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I believe that my edits to the article about the patriot [[Richard Nixon]] (and possibly my edits to [[Apple pie]], an article I wrote by myself) which are controvercial here. Although I will leave if my own home page comes under attack. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well I sincerely hope that you user page does not come under attack as that would be consider a clear act of censorship. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Was it not Thomas Jefferson who garanteed us the right to free speech in the first ammendment to the [[Declaration of Independence]]? --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:23:10Z

Cranky Joe:

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:18:32Z

Cranky Joe:

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:10:47Z

Cranky Joe:

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:10:10Z

Cranky Joe:

Apple pie

2007-03-14T04:07:52Z

Cranky Joe:

'''Apple pie''' is a pie made out of apples. They are delicious and patriotic. Something can be said to be as "American as apple pie".

Richard Nixon

2007-03-14T03:57:00Z

Cranky Joe:

[[Image:Richard_nixon.gif|right|thumb|The 37th President of the United States, Richard Nixon]]

'''Richard Milhous Nixon''' (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1969 to 1974. He was the 36th [[Vice President of the United States of America]] from 1953 to 1961, in the administration of [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]. As a [[Congressman]] from [[California]], he investigated [[Communists]] and instigated the successful prosecution of [[Alger Hiss]]. Nixon served as Vice President under President Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, and lost his first presidential race to [[John F. Kennedy]] by a tiny margin. In 1968 he was elected president, and was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but had to resign the following year due to a threat of impeachment by Congress for the Watergate scandal. The Watergate Scandal was, in fact, a left-wing conspiracy hoax perpetrated by the liberal media that brought down on of the greatest Presidents of the United States of all time.

President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and was the first President to visit the People's Republic of China. He appointed a conservative (William Rehnquist), two moderates (Warren Burger and Lewis Powell) and a liberal (Harry Blackmun) to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nixon was from a Quaker family. His foreign policy as president was marked by détente with the [[Soviet Union]] and the opening of diplomatic relations between the United States and the [[People's Republic of China]]. His centrist domestic policies combined conservative rhetoric and liberal action in civil rights, environmental and economic initiatives. As a result of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned the presidency in the face of likely impeachment by the United States [[House of Representatives]]. His successor, [[Gerald Ford]], issued a controversial [[pardon]] that cleared him of any wrongdoing.

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]