Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why Reason?

2007-11-15T12:31:20Z

Dallas:

{{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 ==

== 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)

Talk:Human reproduction/draft

2007-11-15T12:18:48Z

Dallas:

The vagina (vaginæ, plural), derived from the Latin word for sheath, is the tubular tract leading from the uterus to the exterior of the body in the female of mammals, or to the cloaca in female birds, monotremes, and some reptiles. Female insects and other invertebrates also have a vagina, which is the terminal part of the oviduct.

"Vagina" is normally used in non-scientific parlence to refer to entirety of the female genitalia. This is inacurate however. It retains great cultural significance as the primary female sexual organ.

----

'''Human reproduction''' is the mechanism by which we perpetuate our species.

In order for human reproduction to occur, a male and female (man and woman) of the species must cooperate in the act of sexual congress. Most cultures enshrine this activity within a union we call marriage, a lifelong, legally sanctioned, bond between one man and one woman.

The sexual act serves to unite the male and female gametes, the sperm and egg, respectively. These gametes carry just one half of the genetic material (chromosomes) from each parent, and when they combine the new embryo contains a full set of chromosomes. The process of gamete combination is called fertilization, and takes place inside the woman's body, in the fallopian tubes or uterus. The embryo then attaches itself to the uterine lining, and is nourished by the woman's body while it develops. This development takes roughly nine months.

At the end of this process of protected development, what was once an embryo is now born as a new baby. Human babies are relatively helpless, and depend on the care and love of their parents in order to survive to maturity themselves.

Humans only reproduce sexually, that is, individuals are not able to reproduce alone by budding, parthenogenesis, or self-cloning as some species are capable of. In addition, human gender is fixed, unlike some species, females are not able to become male or vice versa to deal with homogenous populations of one gender.

'''''Comment:''' I think I gave that a pretty good try.'' [[User:Human|Human]] 18:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that this article should start with some basic anatomy and physiology, i.e. the anatomy of the male and female reproductive organs and the production of gametes before we move into talking about coitus. I think that it's the objective description of coitus which presents the most problems but there's not reason why we couldn't just have that as a draft rather than all the anatomy and physiology associated with reproduction.

My other suggestion is that we separate our reproduction articles into achieving a zygote and then pregnancy because otherwise this article is going to be huge! (comment left by [[user:Kitsune|Kitsune]] at (14:41, 24 April 2007)

:Hey Kitsune, I was carefully trying to avoid explicit mention of genitalia or sexual acts in order to stay on the family friendly side of the line. By the way, can you sign your comments, either using four tildes like this : <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, or using the button above to the right of the red circle crossed "W". [[User:Human|Human]] 15:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

When omitting genitalia or sexual intercourse, interested youngsters will simply search for other sources of information. Do you really prefer the word of the street? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 15:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:It is a very good start. I do agree however that the article should be expicit. It is not obscene to reer to these things, including the vagina and penis directly.

There is also the seperate health issue, and that is the main priority. There will be kids worrying about being normal, explicit descriptions are required, including variance. We have a responsibility here, and it must not be something we shy away from. [[user:Stevendavy|stevendavy]]

I question the chance of producing an article about human reproduction without mentioning the mechanism by which it takes place, that is, sexual intercourse. It seems to me like it's quite clear that any possible accurate mention of basic phsyiological events critical to human reproduction such as (and I say this at the risk of being labelled purile) ejaculation will not be mentioned here, so why bother with this topic at all? All this kind of overzealous censorship does is direct people away from this site, perhaps to Wikipedia, The Great Enemy. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:18, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Gamete

2007-08-22T14:57:29Z

Dallas:

A '''gamete''' is a [[Haploid chromosome number|haploid]] cell that exists in organisms that engage in sexual reproduction.
Gametes are produced by a process of cell division known as [[meiosis]], during which a [[Diploid chromosome number|diploid]] (2n) [[gametocyte]] cell halves its number of chromosomes during several divisions, forming haploid (n) cells.

During fertilization, two gametes fuse together to form a new diploid cell, known as a [[zygote]]. In animals, gametes are produced by the [[gonad|gonads]].

[[Category:Reproduction]]

Gamete

2007-08-22T14:57:17Z

Dallas:

A '''gamete''' is a [[Haploid chromosome number|haploid]] cell that exists in organisms that engage in sexual reproduction.
Gametes are produced by a process of cell division known as [[meiosis]], during which a[[Diploid chromosome number|diploid]] (2n) [[gametocyte]] cell halves its number of chromosomes during several divisions, forming haploid (n) cells.

During fertilization, two gametes fuse together to form a new diploid cell, known as a [[zygote]]. In animals, gametes are produced by the [[gonad|gonads]].

[[Category:Reproduction]]

Haploid

2007-08-22T14:56:06Z

Dallas: Redirecting to Haploid chromosome number

#REDIRECT [[Haploid chromosome number]]

Talk:Haploid chromosome number

2007-08-22T14:55:40Z

Dallas: New page: This reads like it was copied almost verbatim from these lecture notes. Anyone care to weigh in? ~~~~

This reads like it was copied almost verbatim from these lecture notes. Anyone care to weigh in? [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 10:55, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Haploid chromosome number

2007-08-22T14:54:24Z

Dallas:

The '''Haploid chromosome number''' is the number of [[chromosome]]s in a [[sperm]] or [[egg]] cell, half the [[Diploid chromosome number|diploid number]].

== General ==

The n number of a organism (in particular a cell) represents a Haploid count of chromosomes. Cells have a natural number of chromosomes pairs, the number of which is not limited. Being Haploid (one pair) or Diploid (two pairs) or multi-ploid (any number of pairs) is usually regulated by speciation in animals. Plants tend to have species directly related which may have a different ploid and different n numbers. In the case of humans we have 23 homologous chromosomes.

== Chromosomes ==

The discussion of chromosomes is needed to explain the n number in more detail. Chromosomes are the gathering of genetic material known as DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. Each chromosome is made of one continuous macro molecule. The DNA that is contained in these are expressed in the organism through phenotype and cellular interactivity. Each group of chromosomes is contained in every cell in an organism other then sporocytes and gametophytes or sperm and eggs. In any cell the poloidicity of that cell represents how many copies of the chromosomes that are meant to do the same job (homologous) are present. For example, look at four genes, each on different chromosomes. There is one for eye color, one for hair. We have two chromosomes, one for hair one for eyes. In the human case we have 23 homologous pairs in our normal cells. This means we are diploid, as there are in fact 46 chromosomes in each cell nucleus. The n for humans is n=23 because we have to divide by 2 since we are diploid.

== Haploid ==

Haploid animals are very rare, and require their own discussion. Plant reproduction does not negate the ability to easily be haploid because of the many forms it takes, including multiple in one organism. Haploid is defined as having only a single set of chromosomes. In this case any haploid organism will not have multiple copies of the genes that program the same information. In animals all reproductive cells are haploid. Sperm and eggs are formed with half the diploid chromosomes so that when they combine they will be diploid.

== Diploid ==

Most animals we find are diploid, although it is no less common in plants. Diploid means they have two copies of each chromosome. In this case we may have 46 chromosomes, but they represent two copies of 23. So n=23.

== Ploidocity ==

In plants we find that they may be triploid of more. No matter how many copies we find the underlying n number is divided by the number of copies that represent the same information. If we have 5-ploid animal with 115 chromosomes that represent still only 23 homologous pairs (same info) then we have an n of 23 (115/5).

==References==
Lecture Notes from:
* Dr. Chris Randall, Professor of Biology, Sam Houston State University
* Dr. Tamara Cook, Professor of Biology, Sam Houston State University

[[Category:Genetics]]

Messenger RNA

2007-08-22T14:44:08Z

Dallas:

Messenger ribose nucleic acid (mRNA) is the [[RNA]] responsible for providing the genetic [[information]] for [[translation]]. It is the template for protein synthesis. Each set of three bases, called [[codon]]s, specifies a certain protein in the sequence of amino acids that comprise the protein. The sequence of a strand of mRNA is the inverse of the sequence of a complementary strand of [[DNA]].

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]

RNA

2007-08-22T14:42:55Z

Dallas:

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The primary role of RNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). It is also a component of the ribosome itself.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information.

[[Category:Genetics]]

RNA

2007-08-22T14:42:30Z

Dallas:

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The primary role of RNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA [[mRNA]]. It is also a component of the ribosome itself.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Meiosis

2007-03-26T05:28:57Z

Dallas: A cell becomes haploid in meiosis I. Check your textbooks.

The process by which a [[diploid cell|diploid (2n) cell]] forms four [[gamete|gametes]]. Meiosis differs from [[mitosis]] as meiosis I involves chromosomal content being recombinantly halved.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia
Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==Overview of Meiosis==
Meiosis is involved in producing genetic [[variation]] within a species and is part of the process of [[sexual reproduction]]. Two stages occur in meiosis, each split down into several fundamental processes. Meiosis I is a reduction division<ref>Biology 2, Jones M. & Gregory J., 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79714-4</ref> resulting in two [[haploid]] daughter nuclei from one [[diploid]] cell. Meiosis II is very similar to mitosis, where the genetic material in each of the two meiosis I daughter nucleus is halved to form four gametes.

The stages involved in mitosis, meiosis I and meiosis II are:
*Prophase
*Metaphase
*Anaphase
*Telophase
The names of these stages can be memorised by the phrase PMAT.

==Meiosis I==
There are six stages to meiosis I:
#Early prophase I. This is identical to mitosis early prophase where:
##[[chromosome|chromosomes]] become visible due to condensation of [[chromatin]]
#Middle prophase I.
##[[homologous]] chromosomes pair up in synapsis to form bivalents
##[[centrioles]] move to opposite poles of the cell
#Late prophase I.
##nuclear envelope dissovles
##[[nucleolus]] completely disappears
##crossing over of chromatids within bivalents may occur to form a [[chiasma]] (pl. chiasmata)
##spindle is formed at end
#Metaphase I.
##bivalents line up along equator of spindle, attached to centromeres
#Anaphase I.
##unlike mitosis, centromeres do not divide
##whole chromosomes move to spindle of cell, centromeres first, pulled by microtubules.
#Telophase I
##spindle dissolves
##nuclear envelopes form around the two daughter nuclei
##a nucleolus reforms in each of the two daughter nuclei
##cytokinesis may occur - most animal cells will undergo cytokinesis but many plant cells pass into meiosis II without doing so.

==Meiosis II==
Meiosis II is very similar to mitosis, with the exception that four haploid cells are formed. The stages listed below occur in both of the meiosis I daughter cells:
#Prophase II.
##nuclear envelope dissolves
##nucleolus disperses as chromosomes become visible due to condensation of chromatin
##centrioles replicate and move to opposite poles of the cell
#Metaphase II.
##spindle formed
##chromosomes line up across the equator of the spindle
#Anaphase II
##centromeres divide
##individual chromatids are moved the the poles of the cell by microtubules, centromeres first
#Telophase II
##spindle dissolves
##nuclear envelopes form around the four daughter nuclei
##a nucleolus reforms in each of the four daughter nuclei
##cytokinesis

==See also==
*[[Mitosis]]
*[[Sexual reproduction]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Genetics]]

John Howard

2007-03-18T06:02:01Z

Dallas:

{{stub}}'''John Howard''' is the current prime minister of Australia.

John Howard

2007-03-18T06:01:46Z

Dallas: removed libellious material

'''John Howard''' is the current prime minister of Australia.

Hydrogen bond

2007-03-18T05:57:40Z

Dallas:

{{stub}}A '''hydrogen bond''' is an attraction between [[Chemical polarity|polar molecules]]. They are formed when oppositely charge ends of polar molecules are attracted to one another. This weak attractive force is the hydrogen bond.

Hydrogen bonds are responsible for the double-helical structure of [[DNA]], and for the tertiary and quaternary structure of [[Protein|proteins]]. Hydrogen bonds are relatively weak, especially compared with [[Metallic bond|metallic]], [[Ionic bond|ionic]] or [[Covalent|covalent]] bonds.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Hydrogen bond

2007-03-18T05:57:12Z

Dallas: rewrite

{{stub}}A '''hydrogen bond''' is an attraction between [[Chemical polarity|polar molecules]]. They are formed when oppositely charge ends of polar molecules are attracted to one another. This weak attractive force is the hydrogen bond.

Hydrogen bonds are responsible for the double-helical structure of [[DNA]], and for the tertiary and quaternary structre of [[Protein|proteins]]. Hydrogen bonds are relatively weak, especially compared with [[Metallic bond|metallic]], [[Ionic bond|ionic]] or [[Covalent|covalent]] bonds.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Atom

2007-03-18T05:43:30Z

Dallas: Added info on subatomic particles, ions.

An '''atom''' is the smallest unit of chemical element that still retains the element's properties. The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''. There have been many ideas about how atoms may look. The current one is called the [[Quantum Mechanical Model]]{{fact}}, and is very complex.{{fact}}

==Structure==

Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton|protons]], electrically neutral [[neutron|neutrons]] and negatively charged [[electron|electrons]]. Protons and neutrons are contained in close proximity in the centre of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels.

===Atomic Number===

Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, Hydrogen has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. Oxygen has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normaill electrically neutral; thry have no charge. However, elctrtons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[Ion|ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Abdomen

2007-03-16T12:01:02Z

Dallas:

The region of the [[human body]] that is inferior to the [[thorax]].

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-03-16T11:54:50Z

Dallas: Christ the Redeemer??

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Australia

2007-03-16T11:02:51Z

Dallas: Faunæ

== Liberal Party ==

Again the somewhat unusual US usage of the word "liberal" rears its head. The Australian Labor Party is not "more liberal" than the Liberal Party. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Faunæ ==

''"The amazing thing about Australian native animals like the koala and the kangaroo is that they have the amazing ability to adapt to living in densely populated urban areas. Kangaroos are frequently sighted roaming the streets of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne."''

This is the most ridiculous statement I've read on this encyclopædia, and that's saying something. I've removed this from this article, because it is a blatant untruth. If an American is going to write an article about Australia, the do a little research and don't just write about a stereotype.

We don't drink Foster's, you can't even find it at most bars. Dingoes don't eat our babies. We don't all wear slouch hats, and we don't kick people with giant boots as a punishment. If you're interested in learning more visit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia this article.] [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:02, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Australia

2007-03-16T11:01:01Z

Dallas: Faunæ

Talk:Australia

2007-03-16T11:00:16Z

Dallas: Faunæ

Talk:Australia

2007-03-16T10:59:45Z

Dallas: Faunæ

Australia

2007-03-16T10:47:04Z

Dallas: removing corocodile dundee nonsense

Australia is part of [[Oceania]], and a largely secular nation. As a secular nation it does not have a "national" religion and it accepts citizens of a variety of creeds and faiths, just as the USA. It is about 7,500 miles from the [[United States]]. The mainland of Australia is about the same size as mainland USA - exluding Alaska. Australia has six states and two territories. The states are Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. The territories are the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory which is the location of Australia's capital city: Canberra.

Australia was originally inhabited by people who are commonly known as Aborigines although they come from a number of smaller "nations" and "tribes." Over time many of these nations and tribes lost their identity or were decimated by disease, poor nutrition, massacres by white settlers and the forced removal of children from their parents into white families or mission stations. Many indigenous languages and traditions have survived the more than 200 years of white settlement. Indigenous communities now have the right to claim back land dispossessed from them where they can prove that lasting cultural links still persist and where the native title has not been extinguished by freehold or leasehold title.

The mainland of Australia was found by Dutch sailors heading to the spice island of Indonesia in the 16th Century. Most of their descriptions of Australia are based on the exploration of the north west coast which is very rugged and inhospitable. It wasn't until 1770 that Captain James Cook from the England discovered the east coast of Australia which is much more capable of maintaining life and settlers. In 1788 the First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove, New South Wales - comprising of officers, some free settlers and convicts. A number of later fleets settled convict areas around what is now Sydney Harbour.

As the 18th century came to a close convicts were given land packages and more free settlers came to the land in the hope of setting up farms and businesses. A number of colonies started to be formed - the two most populated being New South Wales (capital city of Sydney) and Victoria (capital city of Melbourne). These colonies later became the states.

The 1850s saw the discovery of gold and large number of people moved to Victoria to find new wealth - prospectors from China and the USA came in the hope of prosperity. Eventually this wealth helped build the great cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Ballarat and Bendigo. Australia become a federated country in 1901 with its parliament sitting in Melbourne, Victoria, while the capital city of Canberra was being built. Australia has a parliamentary system of government based on the British system with two law making houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state also has their own parliament. Australia is a democracy which has allowed men and women or European descent to vote since federation, with Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Its Head of Government is called the Prime Minister; at the moment he is the leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard. The Head of State is the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain), who acts through the Governor-General.

Strangley enough the Liberal Party, who have ruled in Australia since 1996 are actually conservative. They take on the name Liberal to indicate their belief in free trade and lack of government interference in business and day to day life. The more liberal (in terms of USA speak) party is the Labor Party whose leader is Kevin Rudd. The Labor Party are social democrats while the Liberals are liberal conservatives.

Australia relies a great deal on industry, agriculture and tourism to foster its economny. It has a thriving film industry and very advanced technology. Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

80% of Australia's population, of just over 20,000,000 people, live on the coast line. It is one of the world's least densely populated countries. Despite the low population water is scarce and most cities have some form of water restrictions in place to allow for basics such as washing and drinking. Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s (Celcius scale is used in the rest of the world) which is about 120 F. The city of Darwin was destoyed by a cyclone in 1974 and bushfires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occuring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2000 homes were destoyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia.

Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. There is plenty of flora and fauna there that is unique to Australia.

[[Category:Countries]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-16T10:40:10Z

Dallas: /* Increased taxes? */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-16T10:27:32Z

Dallas:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, started when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]]. The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. The Administration has been widely criticized for supposed strategic blunders in the execution of the war, including the failure to have a post-invasion plan.{{fact}} The American left has been criticized for its objections to the execution of the war.{{fact}}

===Iraqi Liberation===
Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the proceeding months, were optimistic about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-Zogby poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better".<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm</ref> Since 2004, the situation has deteriorated to the point where some people are referring to the incessant strife as a 'Civil War". <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html] Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007</ref>

===Iraqi Resistance===
However, Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt</ref>.

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html</ref>

Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been in the middle of Arab Sunni and Arab Shia. Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilge of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], 23 January 2007.</ref>

===Weapons of Mass Destruction===

While, massive stockpiles and production facilities of Iraq's WMD programs have not been located, persons associated with the programs have been detained and documents related to various programs have yet to be translated. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], 30 September 2004.</ref> Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the [[Gulf War|First Gulf War]], and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more.

===Costs===

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost approximately $400Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.

Materialism

2007-03-16T05:42:53Z

Dallas: removed copyrighted material and writing basic intro

'''Materialism''' is a blanket term covering several theories, the main thrust of which is that detectable [[matter]] is the only substance that exists in the universe; that is no immaterial or spiritual realm.

Ockham's Razor

2007-03-16T05:37:09Z

Dallas: Ockham's Razor moved to Occam's razor: moving to more common spelling

#REDIRECT [[Occam's razor]]

Occam's razor

2007-03-16T05:37:09Z

Dallas: Ockham's Razor moved to Occam's razor: moving to more common spelling

Ockham's Razor is one of the most widely used [[ontological principle|ontological principles]] in all fields of applied logic, most notably [[philosophy]], [[theology]], and [[systemology]]. It can be stated as follows:

'From any set of equally probable explanations, we should assume the one which makes the least [[fundamental assumptions]] is correct, until we have reason to believe otherwise'

This can be illustrated be the following common example. A tree is found uprooted in the middle of a field with no apparent cause. Two people offer competing hypotheses for how this occured. Person A says that there must have been a storm last night, which combined with heavy rainfall the previous day, resulted in the uprooting of the tree. Person B says that last night aliens visited the planet Earth, and uprooted the tree as a message to mankind. There is no way of determining which of these hypotheses is correct after the fact, but as A's hypothesis makes far fewer fundamental assumptions (basically that the planet Earth has weather) than B's hypothesis (basically that aliens exist, have a way of finding humans in the cosmos, have a way of traversing space to reach our planet, could topple such a tree without being noticed, and so forth), we should assume A is correct and that a storm felled the tree unless B can provide some other evidense to support their claim.

[[John Wisdom]] and [[Anthony Flew]] indirectly use the razor in [[The Parable of the Gardener]].

Natural science

2007-03-16T05:35:38Z

Dallas: added to title and corrected mistaken definition of empiricism

A branch of study dedicated to the accumulation and classification of observable facts in order to formulate general laws about the natural world.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc 2000</ref> Science is based on the ontological position of [[Empiricism]], which states that knowledge must be based upon observable phenomena that are both testable (their valididty can be falsified) and repeatable (another researcher, working under the same conditions, can produce a similar result). Science is not to be confused with [[Materialism]], the view that the material realm is all that exists. As a rule, science does not discount the existence of non-observable phenomena, however since theories concerned with such matters are not falsifiable they are not amenable to empirical investigation, and are therefore consideer non-scientific.

Our understanding of the universe has been increasing [[exponentially]] since Mankind discovered [[agriculture]] 5000 years ago, accellerating yet further with the notable developments of [[Scientific Method]]- the system of [[hypothesis]], [[experiment]], and [[refinement]] that must be used to meet strict peer-review procedures used today, and increasing [[computer]] power over the last 50 years.

The product of many scientific tests is a scientific theory. Scientific theories, while not absolute, represent the best knowledge Mankind has accumulated over centuries of experiments and observations, and are generally accepted by a majority of scientists around the world as fact. Over time, a few theories become scientific laws as they are proven to be true across the observable universe. The Universal Law of Gravitation is one such example.

Recent scientific discoveries appear to be in conflict with a [[literal]] interpretation of many [[holy books]], including the [[Bible]]. However, science and empiricism make no claims about the nature of any potential [[supernatural]], [[immaterial]] realm, as these are impossible to assess empirically. Many scientists use philosophical tools such as [[Occam's Razor]] and point to phenomena such as [[The God of the Gaps]] to argue for an implicit rejection of untestable hypotheses.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

Edwin Hubble

2007-03-16T05:26:40Z

Dallas: rewrite - poor grammar

'''Edwin Hubble''' (November 29, 1889 – September 28, 1953) was an [[American]] astronomer.
Among his contributions to the field of astronomy was the discovery that the vast majority of galaxies have [[redshift|red-shifted]] light, indicating that they are receding from the point of reference (Earth). These observations provided support for [[Albert Einstein|Einsteins']] [[General Theory of Relativity]], and support scientific models of a "[[Big Bang]]" origin of the universe. The [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named after him.
==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Islam

2007-03-16T05:15:21Z

Dallas:

'''Islam''' is [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religion of Abraham based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]]. Islam has grown to be the second largest and fastest growing religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers. The word "Islam" means "submission", to God. The followers of Islam are called [[Muslim|Muslims]] or, less commonly, Moslems. Muslims practice monotheism, believing Muhammad to be God's last and greatest prophet. Muslims live by the [[Qu'ran]], which they consider to be the pure and holy word of Allah (which is "God" in Arabic). Muslims wash their hands before reading the book, which is considered complete and perfect only in the original Arabic, and burn old copies instead of throwing them away. Muslims follow the five pillars of Islam.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Mecca, the holy city of the Muslims]]

===Five Pillars of Islam===

*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. The English translation is "''There is none worthy of worship except the God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''"

*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Pages from the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Christianity==

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or that he was crucified, they consider him to be one of God's most important prophets. However, the Qu'ran warns against worshipping Jesus, for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will burn in Hell: “Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ He that worships
other deities besides God, God will deny paradise, and the Fire shall be his home. None shallhelp the evil-doers.
Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is one of three.’ There is but one God. If they do not
desist from saying so, they shall be sternly punished.” (5:71-73)

==Islam and Paganism==

Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty [[Allah|God]], a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early [[Roman Catholic Church]], system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to link Allah to a moon deity, though Allah is cited in the Koran as the God of Abraham and Isaac (Judaism and Christianity). <ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork (also practiced in Orthodox Judaism) originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the [[pig-god]] [[Jamal]]. <ref>Ibid.</ref> There is some evidence that traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism which ended after the Genisis story of Abraham and Isaac (e.g., at Uhud). <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Like all major religions, Christianity included, Islam has ill-understood and fascinating roots that modern scholarship has yet to fully plumb.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Koran

2007-03-16T05:14:29Z

Dallas: removing uncited material

The '''Koran''', also called the '''Qur'an''' (القرآن in [[Arabic]]) is the sacred scripture of [[Islam]]. It is analogous to the [[Bible]] for [[Christian|Christians]].

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-03-16T05:08:32Z

Dallas: /* My version */

== Before Making Your Own Logo Read This ==

The "rules" for creating the logo are as follows:

# The logo has to be 135 x 135 pixels
# The logo cannot utilize a globe as this would be far to close to Wikipedia's logo
# The logo needs to "blend" well with the rest of the site (this is more of a good thing than a rule but your logo will probably not be used if it does not)
# It would be best for any "background" sections of the photo to be transparent

== Conservapedia Logo ==
* This is a rudimentary attempt at a logo. The colors may not be ideal for the purpose, but I tried for a combination of a 'founding fathers' feel (symbolizing the conservative ideology) and modern spin, to match the online nature of this project.
:: [[Image:conservapedia_logo_small.png]]
The difficulty comes form trying to squeeze something into the size allotment. I'd like to provide a bigger version too, but I'm having trouble with the uploading right now. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 19:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::With regards to this new logo...do you remember the historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Magna Carta? All of them were done by hand, with a quill dipped in ink, and on none of them is there evidence of a mistake in writing, nor is there a blob of dripped ink; those writers paid attention to detail. I take the new logo to mean that time, effort, and attention to detail is going to make each article here outstanding in a similar way; all we have to do is put in the effort. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==
*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)
:: I don't like the above one. Republican and conservative are not the same thing. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::: Nor do I, for three reasons:
# We are not the house Wiki of the [[Republican Party]] of the [[United States]].
## As a corollary to the above, the Republican Party owns that image and we have no right to use it.
# Many who call themselves "Republicans" are not conservative by any reasonable definition of the word.
# Many conservatives have abandoned the Republican Party in favor of a [[third party]]. Shall we, then, leave them out?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG]]
This is my logo suggestion --JessicaS 11:41, 7 January 2007 (EST)

*Jessica, your logo is nice. I would suggest that you give the letters a little more room at the edges. Also, you might try cropping it to a square with rounded corners. Here is what I came up with based on Ben's excellent idea:
[[Image:Another_logo.jpg|300px]]
As I said before, I really like this one. Thank you for the great idea Ben! Let me know what you think of it.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I think the background earth is too vivid, it should be maybe light blue and green.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)

OK. I'll do that in a minute. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

I really don't like either of the two "globe" logos. We are an AMERICAN encyclopedia. If you want to put something behind the logo put a map of America. Also, Wikipedia uses a globe, we don't want something so similar... definitely no globe [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:56, 7 January 2007 (EST)

True, the globe thing is a little to close to Wikipedia's logo. My next one will be "Conservapedia" over a blue and green map of America. ~ Sharon

Actually, now that I think of it, although we do favor the American spelling of words, we have contributors from all around the world. Just something to think about. ~ Sharie

I noticed something interesting about Wikipedia's logo. It reflects their mission statement "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" it the way it has a missing puzzle piece. I wonder if we could come up with something that reflects "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". If anyone has any ideas put them on here. ~ Sharie

'''REPLY''': Yes, it is true that we favor American spellings for words and that we have contributors worldwide, but this is beside the point. Conservapedia is American, unlike Wikipedia which even though it is located in America, does not support America openly. It is very disappointing that this America-based website does not show its patriotism openly. Conservapedia will always show that it is proud to be American. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*I have mixed feelings on this issue. Yes, we do want to support America, but we also do not want to exclude other countries from Conservapedia. If I lived in Ireland or some other country and stumbled upon Conservapedia one day and saw a map of America on the logo, I would conclude that Conservapedia was an American encyclopedia, which is true. But, I think that the map of America would cause me to conclude that contributions from other countries were not wanted. We certainly do not want to exclude people from other countries in this way. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Comment''' I think that this particular logo (above) is the best so far.

As to the little debate you are having, I think that a globe is a very appropriate encyclopedia logo; we hope to have facts in our encyclopedia that relate to the '''''entire world''''', not just America. The fact that we require american spellings does not mean we only want information about america. ''The logo should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.''

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservalogo.gif]]

How about something like this

The background looks too dull along with that red color, which really hurts my eyes, but it will probably look much better after some color changes. ~ Sharon

Or This
[[Image:Conservalogo2.gif]]

That looks much better! The other map looked like goggles or something. ~ Sharon

These look pretty good Sharon. However, remember that we want the logo to "blend" well with the rest of the site. These logos would kind of clash with the other colors... if you know what I mean. Sorry for being so negative ;) [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*Oh, those are actually Tim's. I just commented on them. I was instaling all my graphics designs software on this computer and am going to make some more logos tonight. Also, don't worry about being negative in your comments. If everyone tries to be nice all the time, nothing gets done. Since we are all friends, contructive criticism won't hurt anybody's feelings and will help us come out with a really excellent logo. ~ Sharie

[[Image:CLOGO3.gif]]
Or this

Here is another logo in softer colors with soft edges. I also changed the fonts around a little, but can put them back the other way if you don't like these.

[[Image:Yet_Another_Logo.jpg|300px]]

I know it still needs quite a bit of work so please critique it! --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I changed my mind. The more I see, the less I like the idea of the logo being based on a map or globe. I think something made up of several different pieces that reflect our "mission," including things like a a cross, an american flag, a bible, etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:21, 8 January 2007 (EST)

How about something like this:
[[Image:Conservapidialogo01.JPG]]

I like it! Once again, the colors are a little too bright (on my monitor at any rate), but it is a good start. I really like the American flag in it. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:51, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I think that the bright colors are good. It may be a bit much when you see it big like that, but if it is small and in the corner of the screen it will help it be more noticable. You don't want the logo to blend so much that it "hides" in the corner. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* I still like the other one better (see my last comment). If we do end up using this one, you need to make the "conservapedia" alot bigger. The caption will be almost illegible when this logo is small enough to fit in the corner.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* P.s. I would further complain that the cross does is just plain brown and does not fit the picture; Maybe you should paste one on the flag that is slightly more detailed. also I don't like having the american flag at all; The logo, as I said before, should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.

I disagree: The logo should not reflect all of the information that we have to offer, but the difference between what we have to offer and what other people have to offer. It should reflect our point of view. Nobody is going to look at a logo and say "Oh look, an american flag, they must only have information about america." The logo reflects Christianity and Patriotism, not that we only have information about america and christianity. Even if we did want to do it your way the map would still be a bad idea because it implies geography. The logo I posted is just a concept, not a final product. it took me about 5 minutes. We would certainly want a more detailed cross, and bigger type.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:29, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I never thought about the world map implying geography. Interesting point. Maybe we are putting too much importance on the logo. Although it should look good and reflect the mission of Conservapedia, I wonder if visitors to the site are really going to give the logo much more than a quick glance. I for one don't ever really pay much attention to a site's logo. I think I am going to do something similar to what you did for my next logo. ~ Sharon

: Tim, I agree. Yes, we are getting pretty hung up on this issue. The facts are that we can't use a globe because it's way to close to Wikipedia's logo and that we'll always scare a small amount of people away depending on the logo we have. Even so, this should not intimidate us from placing what we are about in the logo. For now, let's just keep putting out ideas that don't incorporate a globe. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:CLOGOOO1.JPG]]

Tim, I took yours and edited it some. What do you think? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)
[[Image:Cross_flag_mine.png|150px]]

It is pretty good, I think that the color of the lettering needs to change, Dark Green maybe? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

*That looks good Philip. I think the whole thing is a little fuzzy. That's OK for the background, but the lettering needs to be nice and crisp. Tim, I don't think that dark green lettering fits with the color scheme of this logo. Here is my version of this logo:

[[Image:Logo4.jpg|300px]]

Let me know what you think. Oh, and tell me if you want me to lay off the cross-in-C thing. Nobody commented on it so I just figured I'd keep using it, but if you don't like it please don't hesitate to tell me. I like this patriotic theme! It makes me think of the Fourth of July. :P ~ Sharon

'''Just Wondering'''
Does the logo have to include the word conservapedia? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply''' I don't think so, but I usually include it because the logo doesn't seem to look complete without it. ~ Sharon

I was thinking that we could keep the logo seperate from the word. That way we can have the word above it or next to it or something, or we could decide to not have the word anywhere near it.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:00, 8 January 2007 (EST)

That would probably look better. I will see if I can come up with anything. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:03, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but the logo needs to be 135x135 pixels. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:14, 9 January 2007 (EST)

OK! ~ Sharon

How's This

[[Image:Conservapedia.JPG|Thumb|135Px]]

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 22:21, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*I think we have decided not to use a globe on our logo because it is too much like Wikipedia's logo. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 06:38, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**Yes, we did. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:03, 16 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo.gif]]

It's simple, but I think it is pretty cool. Tell me what you think....I can always modify it: slower, faster, different effect. [[User:David R|David R]]
*David, that's pretty cool but I think that anything animated would be very distracting when someone is trying to edit/read content on the site. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree. It was just an attempt at sparking a little creativity among all these crosses and globes. [[User:David R|David R]]

**Um, just a quick point here: while using the Cross is nice, you're going to have problems with the conservative Jews that may wish to use the site. Perhaps we should find a completely new idea that doesn't make our fellow ''conservatives'' uncomfortable. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:26, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*** Well, considering the project is officialy Christian and conservative... I do however understand how such editors might feel more uncomfortable editing a project that used an avowedly Christian symbol. I'd be more concerned about the Church/State implications of such a symbol, but that might just be me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo2.jpg]]

There you go...135x135, mainly transparent, good color theme. Comments or suggestions would be appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]

*That looks really good! I didn't realize it was here until now, or I would have commented sooner. What does everyone else think? I think it looks good enough to use right away. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)
** I agree with Sharon, this is a good one. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I like it --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

*Great! As soon as Philip and Mr. Schlafly are back from economics, we can get their opinions. If they like, maybe Philip can figure out how to put it up for us! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

As I said on the Talk page, I like it too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't like it at all. Although the general idea is ok, it's not professional. Frankly, it looks like it was done on Paint. And the first thought that came to my mind when I saw it was the Fourth of July.

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

:Paint Shop Pro, thank you very much. :) What do you think would make it look more professional? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:22, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I'm not quite sure how David could make it any more "professional". I think it looks awesome now. Also, this is an American encyclopedia, so if the logo reminds you of the Fourth of July, that's a good thing. If there is a lot of controversy over using this logo, perhaps we can take a vote. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:30, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, I could draw it a suit, tie, and tophat. Now ''that's'' professional! :P. But, seriously, this logo will be an image of what Conservapedia stands for. '''Any''' and all suggestions are welcomed. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: WOW!!!! I just discovered this page. These logos are all fantastic!!!! Please pick and implement whatever you think is best! We can always improve it in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[image:Oldwikipedialogo.png|135px|right|Wikipedia logo, circa 2002]]
:::::I'm a little concerned about transparency. You posted it as a .jpg and .jpg doesn't allow for transparency. I hope you did the original in a format like .gif or .png which does, and kept the original. If not, you may have lost the transparency for good, because not only does .jpg not have transparency, after you do the conversion to .jpg not all the "white" areas are actually pure white, so it's not easy to make them transparent again.

[[image:logowithborder.png|135px|left]]
:::::I'm not sure the transparency is really all that important, though. One thing you might try is the effect adding a simple one-pixel black border, and see if that gives a crisper appearance against the greyish background. Just my $0.02.

:::::But really, it doesn't matter, just do something. Wikipedia's early logo didn't look as good as this one--at right is Wikipedia's logo circa 2002--and it can always be changed later. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree, we can always change the logo easily in the future. There is really no excuse not to have one. David's latest logo has been approved by most of the regular users. If Philip thinks its alright too, then I think we should go ahead and use it! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Yeah, I'd like to see how it looks as the logo. If it doesn't look good, then I can make the necessary adjustments or we can just scrap it and go down a different route. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:03, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::I don't really like David's logo with the border. It seems to me that it boxes it in too much and prevents it from fading smoothly into the background. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I just notices something about Dave's logo. If the flag is hanging (which it appears to be doing), shouldn't the stars be on the opposite side (the left side)? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:12, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::It could go either way. It just depends which side of the flag you're on. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I just submitted some more entries on my talk page. Let me know what you guys think about them. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It can be seen either way. Traditionally, it is seen the way I drew it...rotated 90 degrees clockwise, of course. If you would like it on the left, I can do that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: No, I am positive now that it can only be flown with the stars on the left. See [http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html this]. Rule 14,8 esp. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Ughh, Philip, getting so technical. Fine. Would you like me to switch it? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedialogo7.png|135px|left‎]]

This was just a hypothetical draft, if people like the colors/imagery then say and I'll develop it more. I'm happy to contribute --[[User:Gaijin|Gaijin]] 15:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==My version==
[[Image:Conserva_flag.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Based on the "C" logo above, and a flag image I found online. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I used Windows Paint to do it in all of 12 minutes. Personally, I would keep the flag background, and transform the "C" logo into something more "crystalized", aka Windows Vista, and have it or both stand out in a 3-D effect. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I like it --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Did the site that you retrieved the image from give specific permission for reproduction and alteration of the image in it's copyright statement? If not, it's probably illegal. And since I, like much of you lot here, am a Christian, albeit an Australian one, I shall refer you to Romans 13:1-7 for the bibles' policy on breaking the law. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 01:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Another one==
[[Image:Conservaflags.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Logo has the naval signal flags spelling "DUTY", from Admiral Nelson's famous signal on HMS Victory at Trafalgar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Logo discussion from Talk:Main_Page==

:How about a crucifix, or a picture of the bible? Something obviously christian [[User:HomoErectus|HomoErectus]]
::Howabout this? [[Image:Conservapedia-logo2.png]]. I just made it. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 17:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)