Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Philip J. Rayment

2007-05-13T01:08:41Z

Darwindude:

{{userboxtop|Philip J. Rayment}}
{{user Christian}}
{{user straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User ComingBigBang}}
{{user Aussie}}
{{user Sysop}}
{{user communist}}
{{userboxbottom}}
To find out general information about me, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment my user page] on Wikipedia.

== Useful links ==
{{useful links|float=right}}
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table Wikipedia help for tables]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template Wikipedia help for templates]
* [[special:NewPages]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page= User creation log]
* [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|Proposed Block Policy]]

* [[/Creationism|Creationism]]

=== Watch ===
{{user|Jack7903}}

== Editorial ==

When I came across Conservapedia, I liked the idea of it being resistant to the atheistic bias that inflicts itself on Wikipedia. But some aspects of it seemed a bit odd. For example, the list of [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|what's wrong with Wikipedia]] starts off with Wikipedia using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. Okay, I actually agree with Conservapedia on that, but putting it at the head of the list of Wikipedia problems? Come on, that's a minor issue compared to some others. However, I figured that someone might say that the list is in no particular order, and it being the first item on the list was just the way it happened. So I didn't say anything about that when I made my first "contribution" to Conservapedia, on the [[Conservapedia Talk]] page:
<blockquote>I've just recently come across Conservapedia, and thought that I'd offer my initial impressions.
<br />
First, to establish my credentials, although I don't normally go around describing myself as a conservative, I definitely would be one. I'm a Christian, and a young-Earth creationist. A fuller description of me is on my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page]. You will also see there that I lament the bias that Wikipedia has in some areas.
<br />
So I should consider Conservapedia a "good thing", right? Well, perhaps it is; I think it's too soon for me to say. But despite being conservative, Christian, creationist, and pro-American, I am an Australian, and proud of it. And despite being pro-American, I don't like the way that American culture has pervaded Australia so much, and I also don't like the attitude that so many Americans seem to have that America is all there is or all that matters.
<br />
So one of the things that I DO like about Wikipedia is it's policy on the use of different English spellings. If I start an article on Wikipedia that is not specifically about something American, for example, I'm free to use Australian spellings, and unless the article is largely rewritten by someone else, policy is that the Australian spellings (being the spellings of the first major contributor to the article) are favoured. I find it frustrating that so many articles have already been written with American spellings, so they are stuck with them.
<br />
To come here and find that this otherwise promising site has a nationalistic bias towards American spellings—''which bias has nothing to do with being conservative''—is most disappointing. The criticism of Wikipedia on this point in the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] (No. 13) is laughable. Surely ''favouring'' one language over another is bias, whereas ''not favouring'' is a lack of bias? Moreover, that criticism uses as justification that most English-speakers are American. This is a misleading half-truth. Americans comprise about 280 million English-speakers[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lan_eng_spe-language-english-speakers]. This compares to a total of about 480 million people (same source) who speak English ''as a first language'' (which means that Americans make up 58 percent, not exactly an overwhelming majority), but it also compares to a total, including people who speak it as a second language, of 1,800 million people[http://www.ehistling-pub.meotod.de/01_lec06.php]. By this figure, Americans comprise about 16 percent of English speakers!</blockquote>
When I was growing up, we had a Compton's encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this encyclopedia had lots of articles on American cities, for example, but next to nothing on Australian cities. We later bought a World Book encyclopedia, because it was much more balanced (i.e. not US-centric).
And over the years I heard many stories about how little Americans were aware of matters outside their own country. Supposedly, Americans got Australia confused with Austria (different hemisphere, different continent, different language, different background), were surprised that we could speak English so well, thought that kangaroos hopped down the main streets of our capital cities, etc. etc. We got lots of information about America in our news reports, on TV shows (I don't know how many Aussie kids have grown up thinking the last letter of the alphabet was pronounced ''zee'' instead of ''zed'', because they watched ''Sesame Street''), and even in encyclopedias. But how much did Americans know about us? Very little, it seemed.

Now no doubt that's changed somewhat over the years, with Paul Hogan "throwing a shrimp on the barbie" (not that we do much of exactly that), and some Australian movies and TV shows getting an airing in the U.S. of A.

But then I come here and find this site being parochially American! Even objecting to non-American spelling! I like being able to edit creation- and Bible-related articles without the liberals/atheists/etc. howling you down and ganging up against you (although there are a few here trying to inflict what they consider to be correct on the site), but then I keep coming up against these Americanisms. Yesterday I came across the [[John Howard]] article, which had been vandalised several times with completely fictional accounts of the man, but it seems that none of the American editors here really had any idea that it was complete nonsense.

Then I look at the article on [[Australia]], which was basically a factual article, but included how far it is from America! It's really looking like this is a site for Americans only, and nobody else matters. Today I noticed that an Australian spelling of a word in that article has been changed to an American spelling—remember this is an article about ''Australia''!

'''Update 24-3-07''': Now the Conservapedia logo has been altered to incorporate stars and stripes! Although it seems that this may just be a proposal rather than the final thing.

'''Update 25-3-07''': Conservapedia's just dropped the American-spelling rule! Bewdy!

That's where I am at the moment. Will I continue here? For now, probably, because I like the freedom from the bibliosceptics, but I don't like the US-centric viewpoint.

''' 7-4-07''': Well, I was made a sysop a couple of days ago, and Andy Schlafly has made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=90950&oldid=90938 encouraging comments] (and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=90960 here] too) regarding the US-centric thrust, so it looks like I'll be staying here after all. Although the bibliosceptics are getting as bad here as on Wikipedia, unfortunately. I am a huge total idiot that likes obsessing about the myth of creation. I also like watching Barney while taking a dump in my diapers.

== My Contributions ==

[http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Philip%20J.%20Rayment Detailed breakdown and count.]
<table class="wikitable"><tr valign="top"><td>
=== Started ===
* {{tl|UB}}
* {{tl|User 6000YearOldEarth}}
* {{tl|User ComingBigBang}}
* [[Information]]
* [[Help:Templates]]
* [[Railway]]
* [[ANZAC Day]]
* [[Help:Editing etiquette|Editing etiquette]]
* {{tl|useful links}}
* [[Mungo Man]]
</td><td>

=== Major rewrites ===
* [[Biblical creation account]]
* [[Date of Creation]]
* [[Definitions of evolution‎]]
* [[Great Flood]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Jurassic]]
* [[Ice Age]]
* [[Cretaceous]]
* [[Physical science]]
</td><td>

=== Significant editing ===
* [[Adam]]
* [[Australia]]
* [[Creation Week]]
* [[Dinosaur]]
* [[Earth]]
* [[Garden of Eden]]
* [[Genesis]]
* [[Noah's Ark]]
* [[Conservapedia:Userboxes]]
* [[Tyrannosaurus rex]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* {{tl|welcome}}
* [[Election]]
</td><td>

=== Less significant editing ===
* [[Dihydrogen monoxide]]
* [[Haploid chromosome number (n)]]
* [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible Inerrant?]]
* [[Kangaroo]]
* [[Media bias]]
* [[Theory of evolution]]
* [[Macroevolution]]
* [[Tasmania]]
</td></tr></table>

User:Philip J. Rayment

2007-05-13T01:08:08Z

Darwindude:

{{userboxtop|Philip J. Rayment}}
{{user Christian}}
{{user straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User ComingBigBang}}
{{user Aussie}}
{{user Sysop}}
{{user donut missed}}
{{userboxbottom}}
To find out general information about me, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment my user page] on Wikipedia.

== Useful links ==
{{useful links|float=right}}
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table Wikipedia help for tables]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template Wikipedia help for templates]
* [[special:NewPages]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page= User creation log]
* [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|Proposed Block Policy]]

* [[/Creationism|Creationism]]

=== Watch ===
{{user|Jack7903}}

== Editorial ==

When I came across Conservapedia, I liked the idea of it being resistant to the atheistic bias that inflicts itself on Wikipedia. But some aspects of it seemed a bit odd. For example, the list of [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|what's wrong with Wikipedia]] starts off with Wikipedia using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. Okay, I actually agree with Conservapedia on that, but putting it at the head of the list of Wikipedia problems? Come on, that's a minor issue compared to some others. However, I figured that someone might say that the list is in no particular order, and it being the first item on the list was just the way it happened. So I didn't say anything about that when I made my first "contribution" to Conservapedia, on the [[Conservapedia Talk]] page:
<blockquote>I've just recently come across Conservapedia, and thought that I'd offer my initial impressions.
<br />
First, to establish my credentials, although I don't normally go around describing myself as a conservative, I definitely would be one. I'm a Christian, and a young-Earth creationist. A fuller description of me is on my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page]. You will also see there that I lament the bias that Wikipedia has in some areas.
<br />
So I should consider Conservapedia a "good thing", right? Well, perhaps it is; I think it's too soon for me to say. But despite being conservative, Christian, creationist, and pro-American, I am an Australian, and proud of it. And despite being pro-American, I don't like the way that American culture has pervaded Australia so much, and I also don't like the attitude that so many Americans seem to have that America is all there is or all that matters.
<br />
So one of the things that I DO like about Wikipedia is it's policy on the use of different English spellings. If I start an article on Wikipedia that is not specifically about something American, for example, I'm free to use Australian spellings, and unless the article is largely rewritten by someone else, policy is that the Australian spellings (being the spellings of the first major contributor to the article) are favoured. I find it frustrating that so many articles have already been written with American spellings, so they are stuck with them.
<br />
To come here and find that this otherwise promising site has a nationalistic bias towards American spellings—''which bias has nothing to do with being conservative''—is most disappointing. The criticism of Wikipedia on this point in the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] (No. 13) is laughable. Surely ''favouring'' one language over another is bias, whereas ''not favouring'' is a lack of bias? Moreover, that criticism uses as justification that most English-speakers are American. This is a misleading half-truth. Americans comprise about 280 million English-speakers[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lan_eng_spe-language-english-speakers]. This compares to a total of about 480 million people (same source) who speak English ''as a first language'' (which means that Americans make up 58 percent, not exactly an overwhelming majority), but it also compares to a total, including people who speak it as a second language, of 1,800 million people[http://www.ehistling-pub.meotod.de/01_lec06.php]. By this figure, Americans comprise about 16 percent of English speakers!</blockquote>
When I was growing up, we had a Compton's encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this encyclopedia had lots of articles on American cities, for example, but next to nothing on Australian cities. We later bought a World Book encyclopedia, because it was much more balanced (i.e. not US-centric).
And over the years I heard many stories about how little Americans were aware of matters outside their own country. Supposedly, Americans got Australia confused with Austria (different hemisphere, different continent, different language, different background), were surprised that we could speak English so well, thought that kangaroos hopped down the main streets of our capital cities, etc. etc. We got lots of information about America in our news reports, on TV shows (I don't know how many Aussie kids have grown up thinking the last letter of the alphabet was pronounced ''zee'' instead of ''zed'', because they watched ''Sesame Street''), and even in encyclopedias. But how much did Americans know about us? Very little, it seemed.

Now no doubt that's changed somewhat over the years, with Paul Hogan "throwing a shrimp on the barbie" (not that we do much of exactly that), and some Australian movies and TV shows getting an airing in the U.S. of A.

But then I come here and find this site being parochially American! Even objecting to non-American spelling! I like being able to edit creation- and Bible-related articles without the liberals/atheists/etc. howling you down and ganging up against you (although there are a few here trying to inflict what they consider to be correct on the site), but then I keep coming up against these Americanisms. Yesterday I came across the [[John Howard]] article, which had been vandalised several times with completely fictional accounts of the man, but it seems that none of the American editors here really had any idea that it was complete nonsense.

Then I look at the article on [[Australia]], which was basically a factual article, but included how far it is from America! It's really looking like this is a site for Americans only, and nobody else matters. Today I noticed that an Australian spelling of a word in that article has been changed to an American spelling—remember this is an article about ''Australia''!

'''Update 24-3-07''': Now the Conservapedia logo has been altered to incorporate stars and stripes! Although it seems that this may just be a proposal rather than the final thing.

'''Update 25-3-07''': Conservapedia's just dropped the American-spelling rule! Bewdy!

That's where I am at the moment. Will I continue here? For now, probably, because I like the freedom from the bibliosceptics, but I don't like the US-centric viewpoint.

''' 7-4-07''': Well, I was made a sysop a couple of days ago, and Andy Schlafly has made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=90950&oldid=90938 encouraging comments] (and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=90960 here] too) regarding the US-centric thrust, so it looks like I'll be staying here after all. Although the bibliosceptics are getting as bad here as on Wikipedia, unfortunately. I am a huge total idiot that likes obsessing about the myth of creation. I also like watching Barney while taking a dump in my diapers.

== My Contributions ==

[http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=Philip%20J.%20Rayment Detailed breakdown and count.]
<table class="wikitable"><tr valign="top"><td>
=== Started ===
* {{tl|UB}}
* {{tl|User 6000YearOldEarth}}
* {{tl|User ComingBigBang}}
* [[Information]]
* [[Help:Templates]]
* [[Railway]]
* [[ANZAC Day]]
* [[Help:Editing etiquette|Editing etiquette]]
* {{tl|useful links}}
* [[Mungo Man]]
</td><td>

=== Major rewrites ===
* [[Biblical creation account]]
* [[Date of Creation]]
* [[Definitions of evolution‎]]
* [[Great Flood]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Jurassic]]
* [[Ice Age]]
* [[Cretaceous]]
* [[Physical science]]
</td><td>

=== Significant editing ===
* [[Adam]]
* [[Australia]]
* [[Creation Week]]
* [[Dinosaur]]
* [[Earth]]
* [[Garden of Eden]]
* [[Genesis]]
* [[Noah's Ark]]
* [[Conservapedia:Userboxes]]
* [[Tyrannosaurus rex]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* {{tl|welcome}}
* [[Election]]
</td><td>

=== Less significant editing ===
* [[Dihydrogen monoxide]]
* [[Haploid chromosome number (n)]]
* [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible Inerrant?]]
* [[Kangaroo]]
* [[Media bias]]
* [[Theory of evolution]]
* [[Macroevolution]]
* [[Tasmania]]
</td></tr></table>

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

2007-05-13T01:02:31Z

Darwindude:

''On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' is a book by [[Charles Darwin]] published in 1859. It introduced the world to [[evolution]] through a process of [[natural selection]]. The main thesis was that different animal species were not independently created, and that similar species can result from natural variation followed by different survivability rates. Animals that are more adapted to their environments are more likely to survive. Alfred Russel Wallace wrote a similar theory independently, and had sent a manuscript to Darwin. Darwin also used Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest", but then fitness has to be defined as that which survives.

Human evolution is conspicuously absent from Origin - knowing of the opposition such a suggestion would face, Darwin confined his initial speculation to nonhuman animals. He devoted another, but less famous book to the evolution of man.

==Summary==

===CHAPTER 1. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION===

In this chapter, Darwin motivates the case for variation and selection by illustrating the variety among the natural and domesticated plant and animal worlds. Without knowing the details of [[inheritance]] (which would be demonstrated later by [[Gregor Mendel]], [[James Watson]], and [[Francis Crick]] among others) he shows its implications: like breeds like. Inheritance is what breeders use to direct the variation of species to some useful means. This is done by selection; the breeders' are keenly aware of the minor differences in the offspring populations of animals and exploit them to create new varieties. The variation of species is not simply due to crossings of existing varieties. He argues this by showing examples where it is unlikely or impossible, pigeons, dogs, and talks about recent domestication. Pigeon varieties completely different in appearance from the the wild rock pigeon show traits of the wild rock pigeon when crossed. He shows, through the works of breeders, that in fact even animals within the same breed show variation of which expert breeders are aware (consciously or subconsciously) and exploit to direct the traits of the offspring. This he shows convincingly, as breeders cannot control traits directly, but can exploit variation to make new breeds because they know the traits are inherited. During Darwin's time, species was not a well-defined category: animals may be regarded as species or varieties even among prominent naturalists of the time.

===CHAPTER 2. VARIATION UNDER NATURE===

===CHAPTER 3. STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE===

===CHAPTER 4. NATURAL SELECTION===

===CHAPTER 5. LAWS OF VARIATION===

===CHAPTER 6. DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY===

===CHAPTER 7. INSTINCT===

===CHAPTER 8. HYBRIDISM===

===CHAPTER 9. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD===

===CHAPTER 10. ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS===

===CHAPTER 11. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION===

===CHAPTER 12. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION--continued===

===CHAPTER 13. MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS: MORPHOLOGY: EMBRYOLOGY: RUDIMENTARY ORGANS===

===CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION===

==External Links==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228 Origin of Species, 1st Edition]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009 Origin of Species, 6th Edition]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Origin of Species, The}}

[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Origins debate]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Kangaroo

2007-05-13T01:00:12Z

Darwindude:

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

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They are now native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

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

===Diet===

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

===Social Order===

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

===Reproduction===

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

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], by Rebecca Driver, ''Creation'' vol. 20 No.3.</ref> </blockquote>

It should be noted, however, that animals rarely fossilize.

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic. There is, however, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the kangaroo species which would be expected if all kangaroos were descended from two individuals.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>, or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="cab17"/>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Debate:Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?

2007-05-13T00:58:59Z

Darwindude:

This is an honest question, although I can see why it could be seen as anti-christian i dont understand why it is seen as un-American

:Because Wikipedia posts so-called 'facts' that could be construed as making America (by which I mean 'Conservatives') look bad. Obviously, it has an Anti-American Agenda! (Insert obligatory [[Daily Show]] quote about the facts having an anti-Bush agenda here.) --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You imply the 'facts' are wrong and there is deliberate anti-American bias. I read a lot of it, I am wondering if perhaps I am reading a different language, I do not see what you seem to see. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I think it's because they don't understand that there are other people in the world and that other people live in other countries and speak different languages or in the case of the Brits use different spellings. They think that Jesus only loves America. Which isn't even mentioned in the bible. But who knows maybe they are right. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 02:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see an eventual answer to this question. The Anti-American claim seemed a little loopy to me. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:27, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:"Anti" is the correct prefix, "Un" as in the question is not. It is pretty simple. Many, many events can be described many different ways (see, for example, the Civil War). Some of this depends on who writes the history (you know, the victors), and some depends on modes of analysis and perspective (e.g., if a round of union-busting creates a "freer market", the lefty would see the lower wages and lost jobs as bad, the righty would see the improved mobility of capital and potential for profit as good). The "creators of CP" see WP as not taking the pro-American view on issues. As an example, when we "went" to Panama and "retrieved" Manuel Noriega, the story from the perspective of a Panamanian family who lost a relative in the "skirmish" would be very different from the perspective of US interests that thought Noriega was not doing his job well. CP would prefer to see the latter, "pro-American" viewpoint emphasized. Basically the same thing goes for the CP viewpoint that WP is "anti-Christian". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, I love America. However, Conservapedia loves it so much that they call a neutral source like Wikipedia biased.

Velociraptor

2007-05-13T00:57:02Z

Darwindude:

'''Velociraptor''' is the name for a small, fast-running, most likely feathered carnivorous [[dinosaur]]. Velociraptor was small for a dromaeosaurid, with adults measuring up to 1.8 meters (6 ft) long, 0.62 meters (2 ft) high at the hip, and weighing 20 kilograms (45 lb)<ref>Norell, M.A. & Makovicky, P.J. 1999. Important features of the dromaeosaurid skeleton II: information from newly collected specimens of Velociraptor mongoliensis. American Museum Novitates 3282</ref>

== Stephen Spielberg's ''Jurassic Park'' ==
The Velociraptor played a prominent part in Stephen Spielberg's motion picture ''Jurassic Park'' in which it was misrepresented as a much larger creature. It was in fact merely the size of a turkey.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/velociraptor</ref> The version of the Velociraptor in ''Jurassic Park'' more closely resembled a [[Deinonychus]].

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Triceratops

2007-05-13T00:55:36Z

Darwindude:

'''Triceratops''' was a large North [[America]]n ceratopsian (horned) [[dinosaur]]. It had a large bony frill protecting its neck and three horns - one over each eye and a smaller one on its beaked snout.

Triceratops was herbivorous, up to 30 feet long, and could weigh up to 8 tons. The skull of Triceratops, which is approximately a third of the entire animal's length, is among the largest known for all land animals.

Two species of Triceratops are known, from a large number of [[fossil]] remains. In the evolutionary paradigm, they were among the last of the dinosaurs, living in the late [[Cretaceous]] period.

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Prehistory

2007-05-12T19:49:06Z

Darwindude:

'''Prehistory''' is the term for the period of time from the beginning of Earth (about 4.6 billion years ago) until the appearance of the [[cuneiform|first written records]]. It is based on a wide range of archaeological, biological, and cultural evidence. Prehistory is not a definite time, rather the period in any society before the use of writing.

Historians describe prehistory as the [[Stone age]] which is divided in to two parts, [[Paleolithic Age|Paleolithic]] and [[Neolithic Age|Neolithic]]. The Paleolithic age came first, when man harvested wild plants and animals for food. The Neolithic age followed the Paleolithic age. Farming became dominant during the Neolithic age. The dates of these ages are debated, but current anthropological reaearch puts the beginning of the Paleolithic at 2.5 mya, and the Neolithic starting at 10 kya. The Neolithic ended 5 kya.

See also [[Ancient History]]
[[category:anthropology]]

Homo habilis

2007-05-12T19:47:10Z

Darwindude:

Scientists believe this was an early member of the [[homo]] [[genus]] that lived from about 2.5 million years ago to about 1.8 million years ago. It was followed by [[Homo ergaster]].

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Archaeoraptor

2007-05-12T19:43:10Z

Darwindude:

'''Archaeoraptor''' was a forged [[fossil]], originally hailed as the missing link between [[dinosaurs]] and [[birds]]. It was created by a Chinese farmer who sought to make extra money by recovering and selling fossils. The farmer glued several fossils together, either out of the belief that they belonged together or a desire to make a more pleasing subject for display. The composite fossil was purchased by a US museum and eventually made their way to [[National Geographic]]. There, it was discovered to be a fake, but miscommunication and editorial oversight allowed National Geographic to proceed with an article anyway. While National Geographic published an article on archaeoraptor, several peer-reviewed journals declined. Eventually, the forged nature of the fossil was made public, and National Geographic retracted their claims.<ref>Simons, Louis M. "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail." ''National Geographic,'' October 2000, http://csip.cornell.edu/Curriculum_Resources/CEIRP/NGArtHlt.html Accessed April 18, 2007.
</ref> It was actually the tail of the feathered dinosaur Microraptor mixed with the body of a primitive bird.

==References==
<references/>

Deinonychus

2007-05-12T19:42:02Z

Darwindude:

[[Image:deinonychus.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A fossilized ''Deinonychus antirrhopus'' skeleton.]]

'''Deinonychus''' was a small, [[bipedal]], [[carnivore|carnivorous]] [[dinosaur]]. It is generally believed among [[scientist]]s to have existed about 120-100 million years ago during the [[Cretaceous]] period. It had a long, [[sickle]]-like [[claw]] on the end of its big toe. ''Deinonychus'' [[fossils]] were first discovered in 1931 by [[Barnum Brown]] in southern [[Montana]]. In 1964 the fossils were designated ''Deinonychus antirrhopus'' by [[John Ostrom]] and [[Grant Meyer]].

Deinonychus are believed to have been [[feather]]ed, like other feathered dinosaurs such as [[microraptor]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus</ref> In fact, the only fossils that allegedly show these feathers are from [[China]], and because of the infamous [[archaeoraptor]], they are often not trusted. However, the others are proven to be genuine.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Deinonychus

2007-05-12T19:40:17Z

Darwindude:

[[Image:deinonychus.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A fossilized ''Deinonychus antirrhopus'' skeleton.]]

'''Deinonychus''' was a small, [[bipedal]], [[carnivore|carnivorous]] [[dinosaur]]. It is generally believed among [[evolutionist]]s to have existed about 65-70 million years ago during the [[Cretaceous]] period, but [[young earth creationist]]s accept it as having been created on the [[sixth day]], along with all the other dinosaurs. It had a long, [[sickle]]-like [[claw]] on the end of its big toe. ''Deinonychus'' [[fossils]] were first discovered in 1931 by [[Barnum Brown]] in southern [[Montana]]. In 1964 the fossils were designated ''Deinonychus antirrhopus'' by [[John Ostrom]] and [[Grant Meyer]].

Deinonychus are believed by many evolutionists to have been [[feather]]ed, citing other supposedly feathered dinosaurs such as [[microraptor]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus</ref>. However, whether or not even the related specimens were feathered is questionable. In fact, the only fossils that allegedly show these feathers are from [[China]], and because of the infamous [[archaeoraptor]], they are often not trusted. However, the others are proven to be genuine.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Tyrannosaurus

2007-05-12T19:39:08Z

Darwindude:

[[Image:Tyrannosaurus rex.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Joe Tucciarone's illustration of a Tyrannosaurus rex.<br /><small>(Rights reserved, reproduced here with consent.)</small>]]
The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago, and that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs such as T-rex. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]</ref><ref>[http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that they became extinct sometime since the [[Great Flood]], which was approximately 4,500 years ago.

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

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

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has discovered unfossilised soft tissue in T-rex skeletons. This was unexpected as tissue was not expected to last anything like 65 million years. Evolutionists saw this as evidence that tissue can last that long, whilst creationists saw it as evidence that the fossils were not that old.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], by Carl Wieland.</ref><ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html National Geographic - T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved]</ref>

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. [[Vision|Binocular vision]] is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey<ref>[http://www.nhm.org/mammals/page010.html Natural History Museum - Mammals - Eat or be Eaten]</ref>, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards they likely adopted [[carnivore|carnivory]].

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

==Characteristics==

Evolutionists speculate that tyrannosaurs may have had feather precursors.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Feathers Tyrannosaurus] (Wikipedia).</ref> However, fossils do not show feathers but merely pebbly skin impressions, which are typical of other dinosaurs. Feathers would certainly not have benefited the huge tyrannosaurus, any more than it would an elephant or a hippopotamus.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken] (Answers in Genesis)</ref>. Tyrannosaurs probably had a thick subcutaneous layer, which would insulate them during cold times. Also, since the tyrannosaurus probably lived in a tropical climate, it wouldn't need insulation. However, the young may have had a downy coat, like some modern birds.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Kangaroo

2007-05-12T19:34:43Z

Darwindude:

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

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They are now native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

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

===Diet===

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

===Social Order===

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

===Reproduction===

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

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)...</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. Wabularoo naughtoni, supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], by Rebecca Driver, ''Creation'' vol. 20 No.3.</ref> </blockquote>

However, it must be noted that most animals are never fossilized.

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic. There is, however, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the kangaroo species which would be expected if all kangaroos were descended from two individuals.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>, or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="cab17"/>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]