Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T15:37:03Z

David R: /* If you watched the movie... */

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews of<i>Ishtar</i> or <i>Gigli</i> came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a <i>good</i> <b>movie</b>. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. <i>MakeTime</i>, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. <u>If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.</u>

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billa |Billa ]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia chimes in==
The movie's article on Wikipedia is highly biased (no surprise) and "semi-protected", which in practice means that ordinary people can't edit it. Sort of proves the film's point, I'd say.

: Right. That will be the next new point 1 in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. All too predictable that Wikipedia would impose its bias with respect to this movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whereas the Conservapedia article is unbiased and open for all to edit, yes? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:10, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I created an account to edit this article, but it appears to be locked

: The entry was locked only for a very brief time and only due to vandalism. This is in contrast with Wikipedia, which locked its entry for an indefinite, continuing period for the purpose of ideological censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Elephant

2008-03-25T00:31:23Z

David R:

[[Image:elephant.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Image from http://www.sxc.hu/]]
The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). Centuries of hunting elephants for their ivory has dwindled the population of these animals. Renewed efforts at stewardship have caused a population boom, with the number of elephants in Africa alone tripling in the last decade.

Elephants are the largest land animals alive today. Apart from their massive size their most striking features are a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects, their huge [[ivory]] tusks, and their large flapping ears, used to keep them cool.

Bull elephants, when inclined to mate, enter a frenzied state called ''musth''; they fight with each other for possession of the cow elephants, and become a menace to everything in their path; many humans are killed at this time. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer.

The largest elephant ever recorded (the Fenykovi elephant, now in the [[Smithsonian Institution]]) was shot in [[Angola]] in 1954. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Uses of Elephants==
[[Image:Elephant2.jpg|left]]
Elephants (today generally Indian, but historically African elephants also) have been used as beasts of burden and draught animals, as mounts in processions and in war (notably by [[Hannibal]]), playing [[polo]], and as [[circus]] performers.

==Similar species==

Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as the most similar living creatures to elephants<ref>Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref>, and these groups are hypothesized by evolutionists to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

==Trivia==

*A ''white elephant'' (from the historical veneration of such animals in Southeast Asia) is the term for a possession whose upkeep cost exceeds its expense, making it an overall liability.
*An elephant is the symbol of America's [[Republican Party]].
*Elephants are said to never forget and uphold resolutions relating to genocide.
*Elephants are said to be afraid of [[mouse|mice]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

User talk:Tuffleywinks

2008-03-25T00:28:07Z

David R: Reverted edits by Tuffleywinks (Talk); changed back to last version by SharonS

Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2008-03-25T00:28:05Z

David R: Reverted edits by Tuffleywinks (Talk); changed back to last version by StephenW

The vast majority of the "25 Worst Court Decisions" involved some [[deceit|deception]], impropriety or inadequate scholarship, as discussed in the footnotes. (All decisions are by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] except where noted; rulings overturned by the court system are not included.)

#[[Roe v. Wade]] (and [[Doe v. Bolton]]) (1973) (legalized [[abortion]])<ref>Neither woman in these cases actually wanted an [[abortion]], and both have since attempted unsuccessfully to have these decisions overturned.</ref>
#[[Wickard v. Filburn]] (1942) (granted Congress power to prohibit growing wheat on your own land) and turned the [[Commerce Clause]] on its head.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html</ref>
#[[Dred Scott v. Sanford]] (1857) (authorized slavery & denied citizenship to blacks)<ref>The Court far exceeded the controversy before it in its ruling. President [[James Buchanan]] reportedly had sought this decision privately with the Court, and the decision was rendered two days after his inauguration.</ref>
#[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]] (Mass. Sup. Ct. 2003) (mandated same-sex [[marriage]])<ref>The lead plaintiffs separated about two years after getting married.[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/]</ref>
#[[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) (banned prayer in [[public school]])<ref>The Court cited no precedential holding in its entire opinion.</ref>
#[[Buck v. Bell]] (1927) (approved of forced sterilization of low-IQ women)<ref>The case was based on a fraudulent claim that the woman was mentally retarded.</ref>
#[[Plyler v. Doe]] (1982) (mandated that all illegal immigrants be given free education in [[public school]]s)
#[[Stenberg v. Carhart]] (2000) (legalized partial-birth abortion)<ref>The Court invalidated the [[partial-birth abortion]] laws even though they had never been applied, contrary to its ruling in ''United States v. Salerno'', 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), that a facial challenge to a statute can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the statute may be applied constitutionally. The Court did not even cite or distinguish the ''Salerno'' precedent.</ref>
#[[Roper v. Simmons]] (2005) (cited foreign law to prohibit the [[death penalty]] for crimes committed by 17-year-olds)
#[[Kelo v. City of New London]] (2005) (expanded [[eminent domain]])
#[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]] (1971) (used to justify eliminating religion from public life)<ref>Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]], who later lamented hostility to religion, wrote the ''Lemon'' decision for the Court but admitted privately in a dinner conversation with [[Andrew Schlafly]] in late 1991 that Burger never intended for it to be applied in the broad manner that it was.</ref>
#[[Romer v. Evans]] (2002)
#[[Lawrence v. Texas]] (2003) (struck down sodomy laws, allowing immoral conduct)<ref>This case was a set-up whereby a false claim of a [[felony]] was reported to the police in order to compel an arrest in someone's apartment.</ref>
#[[Stone v. Graham]] (1980) (banned the [[Ten Commandments]] from display in [[public school]])<ref>The Court issued a 5-4 unsigned ([[per curiam]]) decision without hearing argument on the merits of the case.</ref>
#[[Epperson v. Arkansas]] (1968) (prohibited limitations on [[evolution]] indoctrination in public schools)<ref>Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote this opinion only weeks after he was rejected by the [[Senate]] for improprieties in his nomination to become Chief Justice,[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html] and as a new scandal was lurking that led to Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] telling him to resign. This opinion was released a mere 27 days after oral argument, which is much quicker than usual.</ref>
#[[Edwards v. Aguillard]] (1987) (banned scientific evidence of creation from [[public schools]])
#[[Baker v. Carr]] (1962) (one man one vote)
#[[Cooper v. Aaron]] (1958) (judicial supremacy)
#[[Missouri v. Jenkins]] (1985) (upheld 1990) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Montoy v. Kansas]] (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2005) (ordered tax increase for school)
#[[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961) (required criminal courts to exclude evidence if seized improperly)
#[[United States v. Callender]] (upheld the [[Sedition Act]])
#[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965) (created a "right to privacy" not present in the Constitution which has been used to justify abortion and sodomy)
#[[Block v. Hirsh]] (1921) (declared [[rent control]] to be constitutional despite deprivation of rights of property owners)
#[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]] (1995)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:essay]]

Homeschooling

2008-03-16T17:59:48Z

David R: Ignoring the lack of encyclopedic style, it is not significant that every peasant was homeschooled, but rather that Joan of Arc was.

[[Image:Homeschool.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A young homeschool student]]
'''Homeschooling''' is a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the [[United States]], including many contest winners, whereby the students receive education outside of traditional [[school]]s. Reasons for '''homeschooling''' include:

* a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities
* freedom from [[liberal]] and/or [[atheistic]] bias and culture in schools
* a more flexible daily schedule
* avoiding conflicts with [[public school]] officials
* more time by parents with their children in formative years
* avoiding objectionable [[vaccines]], mental health screening, and questionnaires
* developing the discipline to work at home as an adult, which can be invaluable
* less likely to pick up life-long addictions from peers, like drugs, cigarettes, ography or alcohol
* the time and availability to learn a trade or profession as an apprentice, as was historically done

Homeschooling [[parent]]s oversee their children's education, usually providing some of the instruction themselves. In addition, they can mix-and-match other instructional approaches, including:
* attending a weekly course provided in many communities by the homeschooling community
* using a correspondence school (or the modern video- or [[computer]]-based equivalent)
* taking classes at local museums or nature centers
* joining with other [[family|families]] to share teaching responsibilities in a co-op
* encouraging the student to self-instruct using library books, traditional textbooks or workbooks, knowledgeable mentor's and/or hands-on experiences
* hiring a tutor for certain difficult topics, like [[physics]]

Some homeschoolers also include local "after school" enrichment programs like scouts, 4-H, sports, [[music]] lessons, karate or dance classes, public library programs, and summer camps as part of their educational program. In 2003, "76 percent of homeschool graduates surveyed between the ages of 18 to 24 voted within the last five years, compared to only 29 percent of the corresponding U.S. population."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35226</ref>

==Homeschooling Statistics==

In the [[United States]], as of 2003, the government estimated that 1.1 million students - about 2.2% of children in grades K-12 - were homeschooled. <ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/estimated.asp] Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006</ref> A 2005 estimate from the [[National Home Education Research Institute]] places the number at 1.9 million to 2.4 million while the [[National Center for Education Statistics]] estimates that the number of students being homeschooled increased 29% from 1999 to 2003.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg 1</ref>Families who homeschool do so for a number of reasons. A 2001 study by the [[US Census Bureau]] found that the single largest reason that parents homeschool is that they feel they can give their children a better education at home. This accounted for 50% of the homeschool families; [[religion|religious]] reasons came in second at 33%.<ref>Home Schooling in the United States: Trends and Characteristics, by Kurt J. Bauman, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2001, Working Paper Series No. 53 [http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html]</ref> Other frequently mentioned reasons include dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools, the ability to provide religious or moral instruction along with academics, the ability to control what the child is being taught, flexibility in meeting the needs of a child with special needs (such as a physical or mental health problem, a temporary illness, or giftedness), flexibility in scheduling family life, and concern about safety, drugs, and peer pressure at other schools. <ref>Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006-042, Feb 2006>[http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp] </ref>

Admissions departments at major [[college]]s are now familiar and comfortable with homeschooling, according to a 2004 Boston Globe article. The article quotes a [[Liberal Arts college|Williams College]] admission officer as saying: <blockquote>"We read home-schoolers' applications just like any other application. They don't get any special consideration, but they're not discriminated against, either. Their applications are interesting, and they've certainly done independent work their whole lives." It notes that acceptance rate of homeschoolers at Williams is 20 percent,<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/schoolhouse_rocked?mode=PF Schoolhouse rocked] "home schooling has gone main stream, especially in Massachusetts. It's estimated that as many as 20,000 children here have abandoned test-crazy public schools and high-priced private schools for the comfort of the living room couch. But most surprising of all is that Harvard, BU, Brown, and other colleges are welcoming home-schoolers like all other students." Source for Williams College admission officer's quote, 20% figure.</ref> virtually identical to its overall acceptance rate.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm College acceptance rates]: Williams, 19.2%. U. S. News and World Report</ref></blockquote>

In the [[United States]], some states allow homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities at their local public schools. 20 states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming) in one way or another expressly allow equal access. In most other states, participation is worked out on a case-by-case basis. <ref>HSLDA: State Laws Concerning Participation of Homeschool Students in Public School Activities [http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000048.asp]</ref> In addition, some states, such as Alabama, are considering equal access legislation. <ref>HSLDA: Alabama - Legislation for Participation in Public School Activities[http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/al/200705010.asp]</ref>

In many states, school athletic associations dominated by public schools exclude homeschoolers from participation in athletics, even though they allow students at different charter schools to participate.<ref>[[New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association]]</ref>

==History==

In the United States, opting out of [[public school]]s is not new. When [[Thomas Edison]]'s public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home.

Education at public school year-round from about ages 6 to 18 only became common in the 20th century due to compulsory education laws. The first [[law]] requiring attendance at public school passed in [[Massachusetts]] in 1852; the second such law passed in [[Washington D.C.]] in 1864; and most states did not pass mandatory schooling laws until between 1870 and 1917.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/CompulsoryEd.htm Compulsory Education], National Conference of State Legislatures: "More than 150 years have passed since Horace Mann helped Massachusetts establish a statewide system of education that eventually led to the requirement that all children attend public school. In 1852, Massachusetts became the first state to pass compulsory school attendance laws, and by 1918, all states required children to receive an education."</ref><ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref>

But even under compulsory education laws in the late 1800s, the school year was only twelve to twenty weeks long. Very few stayed in school from ages 6 to 18. For example, by 1900, only 6% of Americans had graduated from a formal high school. Moreover, these students did not learn basic skills like reading in school; they learned them at home.<ref>''id.''</ref>

Baltimore's Calvert School began selling the school's curriculum to parents in 1905. Within five years, more than 300 children were enrolled in Calvert's correspondence courses. Over the next hundred years, Calvert served over 500,000 children from a wide variety of families nation-wide and around the world, including missionary families and those in remote locations. <ref>Calvert School Homeschooling: A Century of Tradition and Innovation [http://www.calvertschool.org/education-services/home-school-history/]</ref>

Homeschooling began in the 1960s from very different ideological sources. [[Seventh-Day Adventists]] Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore pioneered homeschooling as a result of their research into education and their concern about the harmful effects of schooling on students, particularly boys, between ages 5 and 15.<ref>http://www.moorefoundation.com/article.php?id=2</ref> On the other side of the political spectrum, John Holt wrote a book critical of schooling in 1964, entitled ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> More generally, millions of Americans were alarmed at the 1962 [[U. S. Supreme Court]] ruling which banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools, and many of those parents began to look for alternatives.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first [[New York Times]] story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the [[Westchester]] County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling.<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only [[Christian fundamentalists]] any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."



== Prominent people who were educated at home ==


Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished people were homeschooled, including nearly every great [[mathematician]]. Here is a growing list of homeschooled achievers:

*[[Ansel Adams]], (1902-1984), the finest landscape photographer of the twentieth century. "At twelve, unable to stand the confinement and tedium of the classroom, he utterly disrupted his lessons with wild laughter and undisguised contempt for the inept ramblings of his teachers. His father decided that Ansel’s formal education was best ended. From that point forward, the boy was home-schooled in Greek, the English classics, algebra, and the glories of the ocean, inlets, and rocky beaches that surrounded their home very near San Francisco."<ref>http://wy.essortment.com/anseladamsbio_rjrq.htm</ref>

*[[John Adams]] (1735-1826), U.S. President, learned to read at home, and was then taught in the kitchen by a neighbor with a handful of children. He matriculated to Harvard College at age 15.{{fact}}

*[[Louisa May Alcott]] (1832-1888), the author of ''Little Women'' and other great works, was taught by her father.{{fact}}

*[[Clara Barton]] (1821-1912), pioneering nurse during the [[Civil War]], founder of the [[American Association of the International Red Cross]]. Barton was educated at home, and at 15 started teaching school. She later attended the Liberal Institute in Clinton, New York. <ref>White House Dream Team: Clara Barton[http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/dreamteam/clarabarton.html]</ref> <ref>Clara Harlowe Barton, Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia L. Faust
[http://www.civilwarhome.com/bartonbio.htm]</ref>

*[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]]

*[[Mary Breckinridge]] (1881-1965), pioneering American midwife and founder of Kentucky's Frontier Nursing Service. Mary's father was a diplomat, and she was educated in America and abroad by private tutors.<ref>Frontier Nursing Service[http://www.frontiernursing.org/History/MaryBreckinridge.shtm] </ref>

*[[Andrew Carnegie]] (1835-1919), the brilliant American businessman and philanthropist of the late 1800s, his father was a poor weaver and Andrew dropped out of elementary school<ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref> and had only five years of formal schooling.<ref>http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/carnegiemedal/background.html</ref>

*[[Augustin-Louis Cauchy]] (1789-1857), one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, was taught by his father during an 11-year retreat to the country to escape the [[French Revolution]]. His father "wrote his own textbooks, several of them in the fluent verse of which he was master. Verse, he believed, made grammar, history and, above all, morals less repulsive to the juvenile mind."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 273 (1937).</ref><ref>http://james.fabpedigree.com/mathmen.htm#Cauchy</ref>

*[[Pafnuty Chebyshev]] (1821-1894), one of the greatest Russian [[mathematician]]s, was homeschooled until college.<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Chebyshev.html</ref>

*[[Agatha Christie]] (1890-1976), best-selling English mystery writer. Christie was educated at home by her mother, who encouraged her to write from a very early age. At sixteen she was sent to finishing school in Paris. <ref>PBS Mystery Series "Miss Marple" site: Biography of Agatha Christie[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/mystery/marple/christie.html]</ref>

*[[Winston Churchill]] (1874–1965), [[British]] statesman. He was homeschooled in learning how to read, write and do math, and was not enrolled in a school until several months into the school year at the age of seven. After only about two years at that school, he was abruptly pulled out and then spent several years under the instruction of two maiden sisters in a less formal school setting.<ref>William Manchester, "The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, VISIONS OF GLORY 1874-1932 (Little Brown & Co.).</ref>

*[[Thomas Edison]] (1804–1896), the most prolific inventor in the history of the world and the holder of 1093 patents.<ref>http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledison.htm</ref>

*[[Paul Erdos]] (1913–1996), the most prolific [[mathematician]] of the 20th century, was homeschooled.<ref>http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Erdos.html</ref>

*[[Pierre de Fermat]] (1601?-1665), the greatest [[mathematician]] of the 17th century and the founder of the modern theory of numbers, was homeschooled.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 57 (1937)</ref>

*[[Benjamin Franklin]] (1706-1790), a leading [[Founding Father]] and prolific inventor and statesman, only attended part-time school from ages 8 to 10.{{fact}}

*[[Evariste Galois]] (1811–1832), among the brightest mathematicians ever and the founder of Galois groups and fields and Galois theory. "Until the age of twelve Galois had no teacher but his mother, Adelaide-Marie Demante."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 362 (1937). Galois' life was tragically cut short at age 20 in a [[duel]], and his work was published posthumously.[scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Galois.html]</ref>

*[[William Hamilton]] (1805-1865), the greatest Irish mathematician and biggest contributor since [[Isaac Newton]] of [[mathematics]] to [[physics]]. He was taught by his uncle, the Reverend James Hamilton.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 340-41 (1937).</ref>

*Zac, Taylor, and Isaac Hanson, of the band [[Hanson]]. Educated at home by their mother, and later by a tutor. <ref>Hanson: The All American Boys[http://www.drdrew.com/DrewLive/article.asp?id=1112]</ref><ref>Hangin With Presents
Hanson[http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/hanson.html]</ref>

*[[Julia Ward Howe]] (1819–1910), abolitionist, writer, and women's rights activist. Julia was educated by tutors at home and in girls' schools until age 16. <ref>Open Connections Program, Women Working 1800-1930, Harvard University Library: Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910)[http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/people_howe.html]</ref>

*[[Carl Jacobi]] (1804-1851), a prominent and prolific German mathematician, was homeschooled until the age of 12 and was taught the classics and [[mathematics]] by a maternal uncle.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 327 (1937).</ref>

*[[Joan of Arc]] (1412-1431), one of the greatest military leaders ever.<ref>"As a child she was taught domestic skills as well as her religion by her mother. ... It was my mother alone who taught me the 'Our Father' and 'Hail Mary' and the 'Creed;' and from none other was I taught my faith."[http://www.stjoan-center.com/#bio A Short Biography of Saint Joan of Arc][http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Joan of Arc][http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html Biography of Joan of Arc]</ref>

*[[C.S. Lewis]] (1898-1963), the author of the ''Chronicles of Narnia'' and other famous works, was homeschooled by his mother and a governess until age 10, and later sent to be taught by a tutor to prepare him for [[Oxford]].<ref>'''Lewis, C. S.''', ''Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life'', London: Harvest Books (1955) ISBN 0-1568-7011-8</ref>

*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809-1865), American president. "Though his [formal] education was limited to a few months in a 1-teacher school, Lincoln avidly read books such as the Bible, ''Pilgrim's Progress'' and Weemss ''Life of Washington''."<ref>http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnbio.htm</ref>

*Countess Augusta [[Ada Lovelace]] (1815-1852), a visionary programmer and namesake of the [[ADA]] programming language, was homeschooled by governesses and tutors hired by her mother.{{fact}}

*[[Benoit Mandelbrot]], Harvard mathematician considered the founder of fractal geometry, received no extended formal schooling and was homeschooled by his uncle beginning at the age of 12.<ref>http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fractal.html</ref>

*[[Yehudi Menuhin]] (1916-1999), noted violinist and conductor, never attended school, and was taught Mathematics, History and Hebrew by his father, and French, German, Italian and Spanish by his mother.<ref>Slater, Elinor and Slater, Robert ''Great Jewish Men'' (Jonathon David Publishers; 1996) ISBN 0-8246-0381-8</ref>

*[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791), German composer. "He was educated by his father, Leopold Mozart, a violinist of high repute in the service of the archbishop of Salzburg."<ref>[http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]</ref>

* [[Christopher Paolini]] (1983-), the author of the best-selling [[Inheritance Trilogy]] ([[Eragon]], [[Eldest]], and a third book yet unreleased). He was homeschooled by his parents, through an accredited correspondence course from the American School in Chicago, Illinois, from which he graduated with his high school diploma at 15 years of age. <ref>Book Browse Author Biography: Christopher Paolini[http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=934]</ref>

* [[Blaise Pascal]] (1623-1662), one of the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of all time, was entirely homeschooled by his father.<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics," 74-76 (1937).</ref>

* [[George Patton]] (1885–1945), one of America's greatest generals. He was homeschooled until age 11 based on his "father's theory of education" that "youthful mind should be led along a path that parallels the development of the mind of the race" by being read to by elders.<ref>http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap01.html The Patton Society ("The Early Years")]</ref><ref>http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=517</ref>

* [[Henri Poincaré]] (1854-1912), one of the greatest mathematicians ever and an original developer of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Poincaré, who had diphtheria as a child, received special instruction from his gifted mother and excelled in written composition while still in elementary school. He entered the Lycée in Nancy (now renamed the Lycée Henri Poincaré in his honor), in 1862 and spent eleven years there. He entered the École Polytechnique in 1873, graduating in 1875. After graduating from the École Polytechnique, Poincaré continued his studies at the École des Mines. <ref>Jules Henri Poincaré[http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Poincare.html]</ref>

* [[Alexander Pope]] (1688-1744), one of the greatest and most-often quoted [[English]] poets and essayists. "From Twyford School he was expelled after writing a satire on one of the teachers. At home, Pope's aunt taught him to read. Latin and Greek he learned from a local priest and later he acquired knowledge of French and Italian poetry."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm</ref>

*[[Joseph Priestley]] (1733-1804), the father of modern chemistry and the discoverer of oxygen, dropped out of school as a teenager and privately learned geometry, algebra and numerous languages.{{fact}}

*[[Bernhard Riemann]] (1826-1866), a German recognized as the greatest modern mathematician. He was taught at home by his father, a Lutheran minister, until he was ten. After that he was tutored by a teacher from a local school until he entered the Lyceum in Hannover at 14. <ref>School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews, Scotland -- Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson[http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Riemann.html]</ref><ref>http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/199899/bioriema.htm</ref>

*[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1882-1945), U.S. President. He was educated by private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton, an elite private school in Massachusetts, in 1896. <ref>The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. "Franklin D. Roosevelt." Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt, ed. by Allida Black, June Hopkins, et. al. (Hyde Park, New York: Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site, 2003).
[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm]</ref>

*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1858–1919), U.S. President. "Roosevelt never enrolled in a public school. He was mostly instructed by private tutors until he entered Harvard College in 1876."<ref>http://law.enotes.com/presidential-biography/theodore-roosevelt-administrations/education</ref>

*[[George Bernard Shaw]] (1856-1950), author. Tutored in the classics by a clerical uncle until he entered school at age 10. Left school by age 15. <ref>Encyclopedia of World Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw/]</ref> <ref>Dictionary of Literary Biography on George Bernard Shaw[http://www.bookrags.com/biography/george-bernard-shaw-dlb/]</ref><ref>George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950 Biographical Sketch[http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/shaw.gb.bio.html]</ref>

*[[Mark Twain]] (real name was Samuel Clemens) (1835-1910), American author and satirist who said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Attended school through the 5th grade, where he "excelled only in spelling" and was frequently truant, then worked as a printer's apprentice for a local newspaper. His mother said, "He was always a great boy for history, and could never get tired of that kind of reading; but he hadn't any use for schoolhouses and text books." <ref>The Mark Twain House and Museum: Biography of Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain [http://www.marktwainhouse.org/theman/bio.shtml]</ref><ref>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mark Twain, by Archibald Henderson
[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/8/7/6873/6873.txt]</ref>

* [[Leonardo da Vinci]] (1452–1519), Italian artist, inventor, and all-around "Renaissance man". Leonardo went to school in Vinci, where he learned to write, to read and to calculate, and was taught geometry and Latin. At 14, Leonardo moved to Florence where he began an apprenticeship in the workshop of Verrocchio. <ref>Leonardo da Vinci[http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/childhood.html]</ref>

*[[Andrew Wyeth]] (1917- ), American artist, was tutored at home until he was 18. <ref>The Homeschooling of Andrew Wyeth, A Conversation with the Artist, Gifted Children Monthly, May 1986, Vol 7 No. 5.[http://www.nfgcc.org/51.htm] </ref>

*[[Frank Lloyd Wright]] (1867-1959), considered the finest architect ever, was homeschooled by his mother who dreamed that he would become an architect. She used "Froebel's geometric blocks to entertain and educate her son" as his father led the family among various Baptist churches, where he preached.<ref>http://freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/a/archs/wright/bio/index.html</ref> Wright then attended high school but dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0942394/bio</ref>

In addition, a number of prominent people have chosen to homeschool their children. [[David Guterson]], author of the novel ''Snow Falling on Cedars'' (1994), which won the 1995 [[PEN/Faulkner Award]], also wrote ''Family Matters: Why Homeschooling Makes Sense'' (1992), an account of his family's homeschooling journey. <ref>www.randomhouse.com: David Guterson [http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/read/snow/guterson.html]</ref> Actor and recording artist Will Smith and his wife actress Jada Pinkett Smith homeschool their children. <ref>Reader's Digest: Will Power: Will Smith is One Driven Guy[http://www.rd.com/content/will-smith-interview/1/]</ref>. Roseanne Barr stated in an interview that she has started to homeschool her 11-year-old son.<ref>Reuters Interview - Roseanne Barr says age gives her a louder voice
[http://in.news.yahoo.com/070322/137/6dlba.html]</ref> Jimmy Wales, co-founder of [[Wikipedia]], also homeschools.<ref>http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html</ref> Kristin Maguire, head of the [[South Carolina]] board of education, which governs all its [[public schools]], homeschools all four of her children.<ref>http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/09/17stjour.h27.html</ref>
----

== Arguably Homeschooled ==
Lists abound of famous homeschooled achievers, some more accurate than others.<ref>http://www.eadshome.com/Famoushomeschooled.htm</ref><ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref>. The following people have been found on such lists. Their educational background has not yet been researched by Conservapedia editors. ['''Note: everyone is invited to find citations for these listed below and with the citations move them up to the category above.''']

*'''Military'''
**[[Stonewall Jackson]]
**[[Douglas MacArthur]]

* '''Inventors and Scientists'''
**[[Alexander Graham Bell]] (1847-1922), inventor of the telephone.
**[[George Washington Carver]]
**[[Pierre Curie]]
**[[Cyrus McCormick]]
**[[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
**[[Booker T. Washington]]

*'''Leaders'''
**[[George Washington]]
**[[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
**[[James Madison]]
**[[William Henry Harrison]]
**[[John Tyler]]
**[[George Clymer]]
**[[William Livingston]]
**[[George Mason]]
**[[Charles Pickney III]]
**[[George Wyeth]]
**[[Patrick Henry]]
**[[William Penn]]
**[[Henry Clay]]
**[[John Jay]]
**[[John Marshall]]
**[[John Rutledge]]

*'''Religious Figures'''
**[[William Cary]]
**[[Jonathan Edwards]]
**[[Dwight L. Moody]]
**[[John Newton]]
**[[Charles Wesley]]
**[[John Wesley]]
**[[Brigham Young]]

*'''Writers'''
**[[Hans Christian Andersen]]
**[[Robert Browning]] (1812-1889), a brilliant English poet.
**[[Pearl S. Buck]]
**[[Charles Dickens]]
**[[Bret Harte]]
**[[C. S. Lewis]]
**[[Sean O’Casey]]

*'''Artists and Social Figures'''
**[[Claude Monet]]
**[[John Burroughs]]
**[[George Rogers Clark]]
**[[Florence Nightingale]]
**[[Leo Tolstoy]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
*[[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]
*[[Homeschooling in England and Wales]]
[[Category:Education]]

==External links==
*[http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p54.htm Christian Children Must Have More Than A Fighting Chance] - Four reasons to homeschool your children, by [[Art Robinson]]
*[http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/famoushomeschoolers.htm] - List of homeschooled achievers.

File talk:EarthatNight.jpg

2008-03-09T01:37:55Z

David R: New page: Woah cool pic! The red dots are really wildfires, un-photoshopped?! --~~~~

Woah cool pic! The red dots are really wildfires, un-photoshopped?! --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 20:37, 8 March 2008 (EST)

User talk:David R

2008-02-27T02:57:04Z

David R: /* IRK? */

<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; background-color: #FFAF00; color: white; height: 95px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: -3px; margin-left: -3px; width: 807px">

{{User Talk1}}
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #FFFFFF; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="color: #FFAF00"><u><b>Archives</b></u><br/>[[User talk:David R/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #FFAF00; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; border:3px dashed #FFFFFF; width: 75%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: 5px; background: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">

Ha ha David. Great banner!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! :) I kind of borrowed from yours a bit and then changed a lot around. I still haven't fully grasped how to use divs in Wiki; my HTML tables don't seem to work very well. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks. ==

Honestly, I thought it was a programming error that my name was mentioned in his comment. Please forgive, I'm VERY new to the site. I haven't gotten a straight answer on this: Is any variant on the word Sex forbidden on this site?

Still, you should not have edited his comment. As for your question, I'm not exactly sure what you want to put up. I suppose a good safety measure is to not write anything you wouldn't like your little brother or sister to see. I don't know what that is for you, but you will certainly know if you cross the line. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== personal talk pages ==

I don't have a problem with someone clearing their own talk page. replace it if you must, please don't block someone for doing it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk pages can be placed in Archives, but they shouldn't be cleared. I don't know what user you really are, but last I heard, comments are not supposed to be deleted unless they're obscene. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:05, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Complaint==

Please, tell me how my edit violated any of those "Commandments". [[User:_Ace|_Ace]]

See [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment #3]]. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Please cite the commandment I violated and the Edit that violated it. Also, I think it should be added in the Commandments that conservative bias must be found in all edits. [[User:_Patriot101|_Patriot101

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

== Hard to read ==

The whit lettering on the bluish background ar hard to read, i suggest changing it to black lettering. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== ==

This looks like your MySpace... [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha....yeah, it was definitely a guideline. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== The word "parody" ==

Please forgive me for pointing this out... People are starting to use the word "parody" a little bit incorrectly, and it's starting to grate on me. If your comments were just typographical errors, my apologies.

A "parody" is to writing what a "caricature" is to sketching. A parody is a piece of writing which imitates its target, but exaggerates or warps it for comic effect. For example, the 1991 movie "Hot Shots!" was a parody of the movie "Top Gun."

The parody is the work, not the person who creates it.

In the context of Conservapedia, it is the remarks or articles which an insincere user writes, not the user himself. The user would properly be called '''a parodist,''' not "a parody." Similarly, one would not say "you are not that good a parody" but "you are not that good '''at''' parody." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== RFB? ==

*Please no more unilaterial actions as a Sysop. Who was this approved by? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

See your talk page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

*Andy has explained, David. Please try and let a guy know about stuff...this has all been very controversial, and my intention was to avoid more pot-stirring, and trouble. Sorry for the confusion. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 23:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Tigers letter D==
Now how do you go about making one of those little info boxes, like what you have for the Yankees, but inserting the Old English letter "D" in it? I would love to have one for the Detroit Tigers. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Many thanks for the userbox, and to a fan of (and I admit it!) the greatest baseball team in history...but I still love my Tigers! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== nice user page! ==

Nice user page! The best I've seen!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha, thanks. Do you use Mozilla Firefox? It works best in that browser. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Don't let the new position go to your head if you get it. ==

Don't let the new position go to your head if you get it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Lactose intolerance ==

I will only say this once, and then move on, and let you decide what to do.

Lactose intolerance is an example of microevolution, which creation scientists have no problem with. [http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm] And the claims of the natural selection are supported by reference 2 of the article. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose] You don't have to scrub a sentence just because it has "natural" and "selection" in succession with each other.

But I will let you decide what to do. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Red Sox logo Image:BOS Red Sox.png==
I have made a userbox thingy for Juaquin Martinez, as he is a Red Sox fan, and I did use the logo...with the required warning that it might be changed, etc. I am thinking of the possibility that such a logo can be used by a fan as mere fan support for his team, but for that we'd have to check with the owner of the logo. Do you think it's possible? If so, then we could have the real thing displayed on our pages! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I sent a message to the powers that be on the Tigers official website about the fan-use of their logo yesterday. I should get an answer shortly, and I'm thinking that they allow it; this reasoning is based on official fan-sites which support a positive image of the Tigers. If it's a yes, then the same rule may apply for the Yankees...so get to writing them! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

====the bad news====
This came in my email from Ron Wade, an official from the internet side of the Detroit Tigers website:
:''"I'm sorry, but use of our marks or logos on the internet is prohibited. Major League Baseball Advanced Media has exclusive internet rights to MLB team marks and logos. The only exceptions are news gathering and reporting sites and only if the use of the logo is in conjunction with box scores or game summaries. (ESPN, Fox Sports, etc.)"''

So that means no one can use a baseball logo as a fan on a website. Both your's and mine are different enough to get away with it, but Juaquin's is not. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'd better remove a couple of sports logos off of my page knowing that now. It's probably safe enough, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== 6000 years old? ==

I'm honestly not in the mood for an argument (major migraine) but could you just sum up how the heck you can think the worlds only 6000 years old?? I don't get it. Thx[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:49, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I will let Andy know about icewedge ==

I will let Andy know about icewedge. I will send him an email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I have to leave in 5 minutes. I will let andy know about icewedge ==

I have to leave in 5 minutes. I will let andy know about icewedge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia ==

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- [[United States]]

- [[Columbine High School massacre]]

- [[World War II]]

- [[Global warming]]

- [[World War I]]

- [[Adolf Hitler]]

- [[Battle of Thermopylae]]

- [[Canada]]

- [[William Shakespeare]]

- The [[Holocaust]]

- [[Abraham Lincoln]]

- [[Jesus]]

- [[Vietnam War]]

- [[China]]

'''What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles?''' Clearly these are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why did you delete my page? ==

I worked hard on that article, why did you delete it? --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 15:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: What if you restored it, and I worked some more on it? Obviously I had not completed it, it is simply convenient for me to work on articles small parts at a time. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 15:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, which pieces were "said pieces"? I assume you mean the examples, which are vital to the article. If they were not there it would be infintely harder and more tedious to explain what exactly a "Your mum" joke is, and the end result would be just as offensive. (And I fail to see how the jokes could be taken as offensive when they are not directed at anyone.)

::: Fair enough, you're the boss, I suppose.--[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 15:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Apologies, by boss, I just meant someone whose rank was superior to mine. I agree with what you say and will do my best to clean up the article if you restore it.

== User page in main space category ==

Typically, it is considered good wiki style to not include user pages in main space categories. You have your user page in [[:Category:Anti-secular humanist]]. Would you consider either removing that or moving it to a User category name space? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

: I am refering to [[User:David R]] - not [[User talk:David R]]. These are probably included from templates. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps you could help me out a bit ==

I was writing up a draft dodging article, andd linked out to your Alvin York article. I have written that York changed his mind about filing for CO, your article basically says he was sent despite it. I just do not know the truth, and may have been influenced by Hollywood in my version, so if you are certain or have a good souce, I will be glad to conform my article and resolve the discrepancy. If you get a moment, please get back to me on this. Thanks very much.
[[User:Leffingwell|Leffingwell]] 17:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Please block ==

[[User:Msousa17]]. Thanks. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:56, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:Nevermind. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:03, 2 January 2008 (EST)

==Theory and practice==

Hi, David. I liked what you said [] about theory and practice. I read a couple of university-level textbooks on Communism, and I daresay you are "dead on" about the consistency of theory and practice.

The inconsistency, of course, is between the political promises made to the "working class" before each revolution. [[Andrew Wilson]] wrote ''[[Communism: Promise and Practice]]'' about that.

But the idea of lying to people to get their support is by no means inconsistent with Communist theory, which adopts an [[ends justify the means]] philosophy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:09, 4 January 2008 (EST)
==Nicely Done==
Hey - great job with the quick reverts of that vandal!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:No problem. Good block. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::That guy's been adding that dumb banner to various basic science articles for months now. Ugh. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Uh oh. If only I still had checkuser, I could find out what other names he used. Then I could revert from there. :\ --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 00:05, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Well - luckily his socks are becoming pretty obvious (see the user I just blocked)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 00:05, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I'm almost curious enough to not block him for a while to see what he actually has to say. Since this "intelligent matter theory" only seems to exsist in his head, I'm curious what it is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::He's an obvious parodist - he said on the mastectomy page that the cancer was a result of sin - I'm not letting that guy stay unblocked for any amount of time. Oh and david - can you delete [[User_talk:NOTASOCK]]--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 00:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Yeah. Must be really bored to add the same thing every couple of weeks. He obviously knows it won't stay if it gets reverted every time. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Well, I truly would like to stay and see this vandal out the door, but it is late here and I have some work to do in the morning. I will be back tomorrow. Goodnight. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 00:18, 1 February 2008 (EST)
==Uhm==
Hey David- I'm reverting your Examples of Bias in CP edit because your removal of words just didn't make sense - like you would leave sentences without endings, I'll re-add the point you made though--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks, I was just about to ask someone to do that. My computer automatically removes words that it finds offensive. Very sorry :(. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 14:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh not a problem - although you might want to find a way to turn off that setting - especially if your editing that article or history articles (I noticed one of the removals was "KKK" (spelled out)).--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::Yeah, I know. Ughh, what a hindrance! --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 14:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== IRK? ==

Does Conservapedia use an IRC channel for discussion? I am used to this based on my contributions to Wikipedia. --[[User:Chevrefuqae|Chevrefuqae]] 21:54, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:I am not totally sure. I have never heard of it before. That may be a question for [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] or [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 21:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Guerrilla

2008-02-27T02:40:07Z

David R: not sufficiently cited. that is your definition until you cite otherwise

'''Guerrillas''' are [[fighter]]s that do not use normal military [[tactics]]. Guerrillas do not wear standard military uniforms; rather they often disguise themselves as civilians. Guerrillas will also hide in wilderness areas. [[Terrorism]] is a form of guerrilla warfare.

[[Category:Military]]

Old Testament

2008-02-27T02:36:09Z

David R: Reverted edits by Jimmy3141 (Talk); changed back to last version by Java7837

{{Christianity}}
The '''Old Testament''' is a collection of different biblical books comprising the Jewish religious scriptures. It can be divided into three general categories: Historical, Poetic, and Prophetic.<ref>http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t1w05otauthors.htm</ref> Inspired by [[God]], the human authors of some books is known, while for others it remains a matter of controversy.

[[Christians]] embrace the Old Testament as part of their holy scriptures, which, together with the [[New Testament]] make up the [[Bible]]. In [[Judaism]] the '''Old Testament''' is called the [[Tanakh]]. Christians have a different viewpoint than Jews in that they see the Old Testament giving prophetic references to the coming of [[Jesus Christ]]. Versions from ancient times exist in both Hebrew and [[Greek]] including the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] giving a very ancient snapshot dating back to the time of Jesus.

The Old Testament documents the creation of the world by God, and the tribulations and errors of human beings, in particular His chosen people the [[Israelites]]. Following the history of the Jews from their earliest patriarchs to their enslavement, freedom, becoming a nation, period of the judges, ruled by kings, splitting into two nations, and eventual conquest. It continues until about 400 B.C. when God's chosen people have once again been allowed to return to the [[Holy Land]] and have come back to the worship of the Lord God. From the writing of the earliest five books, which is traditionally ascribed to [[Moses]], to the last, is believed to be a period of about 1,000 years. The New Testament doesn't pick up until 400 years later with the story of Jesus.

The Canon of the Old Testament was fixed by Judaism in the 1st century A.D. and is the same Old Testament found in Protestant Bibles (except for ordering and naming conventions.) Other branches of Christianity include the [[Apocrypha]]. Most Old Testaments go back to the earliest Hebrew translations, but the Greek Orthodox church uses the earliest Greek versions.

== See also ==

* [[Septuagint]]
* [[Pentateuch]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Talk:Homosexual belief system

2008-02-11T04:26:17Z

David R:

I would like to propose the deletion of this entry. It is putting words into the mouths of thousands of people. It does not even have any form of a source associated with it. This is blatant stereotyping and makes a blanket statement. [[User:Kiss20 | Kiss20]] 22:48 EST 2/10/08

==Revert==
Not true. Statistically, no study shows that people with religious motives persecute more than people who just hate them. If there is, please include. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 23:26, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Homosexual belief system

2008-02-11T04:23:24Z

David R: Reverted edits by Rodney (Talk); changed back to last version by Davidbt11

These are unique characteristics of the '''homosexual belief system''':

* [[censorship]] of any and all criticism of [[homosexuality]], as in "[[hate speech]]"
* intense [[affirmative action]] in the form of preferential hiring and networking
* short-term in outlook at the expense of the long-term future
* narcissistic in personality and relatively self-absorbed in outlook
* relatively prone to [[depression]], and even [[suicide]], due to persecution
[[category:homosexuality]]

Mike Huckabee

2008-02-09T18:36:52Z

David R: grammar

[[Image:Hdyute7.jpg|right|thumb|Mike Huckabee]]
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is a [[Baptist]] minister and is a candidate for the 2008 [[Republican]] presidential nomination. He is known to be [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]], but less conservative on [[economic]] issues like funding [[public schools]]. He was the governor of [[Arkansas]] from 1996 to 2007.

Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee has been viewed favorably by conservatives and [[Christian]] organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee will catch on with Republican primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse".<ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref>

==Recent Performance in Caucuses and Primaries==
A candidate for President in 2008, Governor Huckabee's campaign took off after the Ames Straw Poll, where he came in 2nd place (with 18% of the vote) to Mitt Romney, despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote. His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm, reasonable and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.

[[Poll]] numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability have him steadily moving up in key primary states. He was victorious in the Republican Caucuses at the [[Iowa Caucuses]]<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref>, and came in third place in the New Hampshire Primary, where he personally expected to not even place in the top three.<ref>http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-john-mccain-take-early-lead-in-new-hampshire-primary/</ref> He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "values debate".<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> With far less money than his competitors, Huckabee finished second in the high-profile [[Iowa Straw Poll]] with 18% of the vote, in front of [[Sam Brownback]] (15%) and behind [[Mitt Romney]] (32%). His victory has placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref><ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref>
He came in third in the [[Michigan]] primaries and a close second to [[John McCain]] in [[South Carolina]].

In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined.<ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref>

== Record as Governor ==
As [[Governor]] of [[Arkansas]], Mike Huckabee cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas [[legislature]] enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and [[fuel]]s taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature.

In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors".<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

== Political Beliefs ==
===Taxes===
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[FairTax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Spending===
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million.<ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref> Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Abortion===
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life.

He would favor [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception.

===Marriage===
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref>

===Second Amendment Rights===
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref>

===Immigration===
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy [[immigration]] bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deportat illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref>

==Vertical Politics==
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering [[Partisan politics in the United States|partisanship]]. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call 'Vertical Politics'." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref>

== Personal ==
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]
Huckabee was born in Hope, [[Arkansas]], the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give [Hope] one more chance."
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.''<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, [[Texas]], before becoming a [[Baptist]] pastor for twelve years in Arkansas. Because of his income situation, Huckabee graduated in only two and a half years.

The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in [[New Orleans]], the Red Rocks Amphitheater in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]] and for two presidential inauguration balls.

==Quotes==
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref>
* "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."<ref>''http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx''[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx]</ref>

==Endorsements==
====Organizations====
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref>

===South Carolina===
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary.<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref>

Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]].<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref> During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.

===Virginia===
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>

===New Hampshire===
Huckabee has picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref> Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Governors]]

== External Links ==
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007

==External Videos==
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection]
===Supporter Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]
===Personal Story===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]
===Ads===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]

===Speeches===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}

User talk:CarolineMilton

2008-02-08T05:17:33Z

David R: /* What you saw */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 10 December 2007 (EST)}}

== What you saw ==

Did you see a dinosaur or a cave painting? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)
: Philip, I might have known that you would be the first to respond.

: Dinosaur you say? Is that what that is? Then again, it's like those ink blot tests. People tend to see what they want to see, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNvikHPAyQI&feature=related don't they?] --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:53, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::''Or'' it could be that the image was named '''dino''' art... --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 00:17, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Super Bowl XLII

2008-02-04T04:45:31Z

David R:

YES!!! --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 23:44, 3 February 2008 (EST)

THEY DID IT!!! :D --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 23:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)

2008-02-01T05:18:07Z

David R: /* Nicely Done */

User talk:GDewey

2008-02-01T05:09:00Z

David R: /* Names */

{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:50, 19 January 2008 (EST)
==Names==
Yeah you might want to be careful about that - I mean, especially with users like "Godisalie666" - I'm not sure what possessed you to put a welcome template on his page. Just try to show more discretion.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:Dewey it's happening again--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 00:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Dewey, may I ask you why you are welcoming blocked users? :\ --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 00:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Block==
We could have a debate about the Ten Commandments' influence on the rule of law, but I don't think you'd win it. Absent debate and discussion, singlehandedly removing facts from articles, or calling them into question, is just not in your best interest, and not in the site's best interest, either.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:Iduan

2008-02-01T05:07:11Z

David R: Reverted edits by NOTASOCK (Talk); changed back to last version by Joaquín Martínez

{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December)]]<br/>
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]
</div>
|}

== OK ==

This is much better! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:47, 31 January 2008 (EST)

User talk:David R

2008-02-01T05:05:05Z

David R: /* Nicely Done */

User talk:David R

2008-02-01T05:02:01Z

David R: /* Nicely Done */

Recess

2008-02-01T05:00:54Z

David R: Reverted edits by Luke239 (Talk); changed back to last version by Aziraphale

A temporary interruption of the [[United States Senate|Senate's]] (or a [[committee|committee's]]) business. Generally, the Senate recesses (rather than [[adjourn|adjourns]]) at the end of each calendar day.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/recess.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Senate Terms]]

Mastectomy

2008-02-01T04:59:41Z

David R: Reverted edits by Luke239 (Talk); changed back to last version by Learn together

'''Mastectomy''' (ma-STEK-toh-mee) is surgery to remove the breast (or as much of the breast tissue as possible) usually in regard to [[cancer]].

[[category:medicine]]

Carbon monoxide

2008-02-01T04:59:32Z

David R: Reverted edits by Luke239 (Talk); changed back to last version by Learn together

'''Carbon monoxide''' is a [[gas]] whose [[chemical formula]] is CO. Each [[molecule]] consists of one [[atom]] of [[carbon]] [[covalent bond|covalently bonded]] to one atom of [[oxygen]]. It is [[poison|toxic]].
==See also==
*[[Carbon dioxide]], a related compound

[[Category:Chemical Compounds]]
[[Category:Poisons]]

George W. Bush

2008-02-01T03:42:51Z

David R: Reverted edits by Iamgay (Talk); changed back to last version by BrianCo

{{President
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|seq=43
|term_start=January 20, 2001
|term_end=Present
|party=Republican
|vp=Dick Cheney
|previous=Bill Clinton
|next=Incumbent
|birth_date=July 6, 1946
|birth_place=New Haven, Connecticut
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Laura Bush
|spouse2=
|religion=United Methodist
}}
'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In 2004 Bush won reelection, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000 <ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref>. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. In his [[State of the Union]] address on January 29, 2002, he asserted that an "[[axis of evil]]" consisting of [[North Korea]], [[Iran]], and [[Iraq]] was "arming to threaten the peace of the world" and "pose[d] a grave and growing danger".<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Presidential State of the Union Address] [[January 29]] [[2002]].</ref> Since then, the Bush administration has pursued military action in [[Afghanistan]] and, more controversially, in [[Iraq]], with the stated aims of eliminating threats to United States security and combating [[terrorism]].

===Afghanistan===
On October 7, 2001, US and [[Australia]]n forces were deployed in [[Afghanistan]], then governed by the [[Taliban]], an extremist [[Islamic]] government. They initiated a [[bombing]] campaign which led to the Taliban losing control of [[Kabul]], Afghanistan's capital city, on November 13. By December 2001, an "Afghan Interim Authority" had been installed, led by current Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]].<ref>[http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm Fact Sheet], Center for Defense Information, 2002-02-14</ref> The stated aims of military action in Afghanistan were to topple the Taliban and to eliminate or capture key leaders of the terrorist group [[al-Qaeda]], as well as destroying all al-Qaeda bases and activities in Afghanistan. However, al-Qaeda leader [[Osama bin Laden]] escaped a battle in December 2001 in [[Tora Bora]] and has not yet been successfully captured.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16 U.S. Concludes bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight], The Washington Post, 2002-04-17</ref>

Despite the US troops' early success in removing them from power, the Taliban was regrouping and amassing funds and recruits by 2003.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html?related Taliban Appears to be Regrouped and Well-Funded], Christian Science Monitor, 2003-05-08</ref> In 2006, offensives against the Taliban such as [[Operation Mountain Thrust]] attained limited success.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=285 World Cannot Give Up On Afghanistan, Coalition Officials Say], US Department of Defense, 2006-02-28</ref> The Taliban remain a major threat to security in Afghanistan today, with US and allied troops working alongside the Afghan government of [[Hamid Karzai]] to combat the Taliban.

===Iraq===

Egyptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and President Bush] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. September 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref>

In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

== Economic issues ==
Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the tax on estates. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, IRS revenues have actually increased from $1.78 Trillion in 2003 to $2.56 Trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007. Corporations show profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the Capital Gains Tax, with a subsequent surge in investment.

== Family ==
[[Image:GWBush.jpg|thumb|300px|right|President Bush admires pictures of his family in the Oval Office.]]
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of leukemia.

==Faith==
George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref>

==Polls==

When President George W. Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies including the [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] have become unpopular. <ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, he reached the lowest popularity levels of any president in history, with an approval rating of only 24% as shown by a [[Reuters]] poll (although respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with the [[Democrat]]-controlled [[Congress]], which received poll ratings of only 11%).<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Political people]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
{{USPresidents}}

Talk:Dinosaur

2008-02-01T03:22:01Z

David R: /* Adaptation and evolution */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]]<br />



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, 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 it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
<small>(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)</small>

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

User:David R

2008-02-01T02:16:08Z

David R:

<div style="background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; margin-left: 5px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed">
[[Image:MyLogo.gif|center]]
</div>
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF"/>
<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; height: 95px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 3px; margin-top: 0px">
{{Sysop Pledge3}}
</div>
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF"/>

<div style="background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; height: 975px; margin-left: 5px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed">

===<p style="text-decoration: blink; text-align: center; color: #FFFFFF">Welcome to David R's page! Please ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new comment]''.</p>===

{{DR userbox}}
{{DR bodytext}}
{{DR controls}}
{{DR navigation}}
</div>

User:David R

2008-02-01T02:15:19Z

David R: /* <p style="text-decoration: blink; text-align: center; color: #FFFFFF">Welcome to David R's page! Please ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new co

<div style="background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; margin-left: 5px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed">
[[Image:MyLogo.gif|center]]
</div>
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF"/>
<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; height: 95px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 3px; margin-top: 0px">
{{Sysop Pledge3}}
</div>
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF"/>

<div style="background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; height: 975px; margin-left: 5px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed">

===<p style="text-decoration: blink; text-align: center; color: #FFFFFF">Welcome to David R's page! Please ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new comment]''.</p>===

</div>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
| {{DR controls}}
{{DR navigation}}
| {{DR userbox}}
{{DR bodytext}}
|}

Talk:Dinosaur

2008-01-31T19:54:07Z

David R: /* Day 6 Creation Mechanisms? */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]]<br />



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, 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 it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Dinosaur

2008-01-31T16:59:21Z

David R: /* Day 6 Creation Mechanisms? */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]]<br />



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, 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 it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?

2008-01-28T04:02:02Z

David R: /* Yes */

If the universe is defined as everything then of course anything which is not part of everything is outside the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: The phrase "being outside the universe" is an oxymoron. The universe contains all of space. You can't be outside of something which contains every point that exists. It's a nonsensical idea. It's like "whiter than white". Good poetry, bad logic. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 14:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I guess that was my point. It's just semantics and not a real question or a real answer. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Please see the entry on the [[Multiverse]]. If this debate is to begin to make sense, then it needs to incorporate current ideas on how "the universe" might actually be constituted.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, you might want to read up on the [[string theory]]. This theory states that there are twelve dimensions, and MANY universes. It also has a pretty good explanation of the big bang.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 01:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

With the current level of technology that humans have to explore space we won't be able to answer this question definitively for a long time. Though we won't be able to test any hypotheses that are created to answer this question both Pacman and Everwill are wrong that the question is semantic based because with the technology we do have at our disposal we can prove that the universe is expanding, leaving the question "expanding into what?" The answer to the question might come with a breakthrough into the nature of dark matter and dark energy or maybe the only way to find out is to break space-time. Its a long way off. --blutengel

Many Scientists belive that there are alternate universes that exist out of our space and time

Separate "does the universe exist and does it include 'everything'?", from "what is the universe?" - if you can't tell the difference between the questions, abandon your -pedia, it's valueless.

The universe is one entity by definition. The question then becomes what exacly is the question. Is the quesion: "Is there anything beyond what we know exists in the universe?" to which the obvious question is yes. Is it: "Is there anything beyond what there is somewhere beyond what we know exists in the universe?" which is what I believe the initial question was, and which I question its asking. or is the question: "is there anything which is unaccessable to our universe" to which there is speculation, but needlessly as if it is not accessable it will forever be unknown and if it becomes known it is no longer inaccessable.

Can an ant comprehend or even see the birds?

==Yes==
God is outside the universe. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 22:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

He is also inside - aka omni-presence. --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|<sup><font color="#FFCC00">talk</font></sup>]] 23:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Was world war inevitable?

2008-01-28T03:19:26Z

David R: Reverted edits by Godisgreat666 (Talk); changed back to last version by Brigham's Homeboy

{{debate}}

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

== '''Yes:''' ==
Probably
Chain Reaction...
All of the alliances made leading up to WWI made it somewhat inevitable. it was inevitable that something (The assasination of ) would spark a fight wich would trigger a chain reaction of all of the alliances between th european powers. If both sides had actually wanted to avoid war then ''maybe'' it would have been avoided. However that was not the case.

All it takes is one person determined to fight...
In the case of WWII Hitler and the Japanese were determined to take over the world. (At least Europe and Asia) The rest of the world was not about to let that happen without a fight. This made WWII inevitable.

I am a year 11 student and I also think was war was inevitable primarily due to the fact the Hitler was just another one of Satan's instruments to corrupt the world. If you study Hitler's actions you will be suprised to find how demonic they were. Firstly Hitler was part of a cult and also he even created his own "Nazi Religion," in which you had to worship Hitler and his party. Furthermore the swastica, if you look carefully,is a broken cross, showing how Satan was simply using him against the world. Moreover the fact that Hitler was anti-semetic shows how again he was Satan's instrument for world destruction against God.
Also, through Hitler's actions it can be seen that he was very irrational and blood thirsty. In 1937 he intended to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia, to which Mussolini wanred him not to do which lead to the British and German talks over this country to which Hitler gained a thrid of its land.

== '''No:''' ==

War is almost never "inevitable". War results when both sides think they can win, and believe that the bloodshed is worth it. But both sides cannot win a contest so faulty information is part of the problem.
''Or one side could believe that to die fighting is better than to die in bondage.''

For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars. What happened that made Christians believe in war against each other?
''I don't think that the Axis were Christian... Hitler's racism was based on a Darwinian worldview, (Survival of the fittest) and the Japanese had their own religion. (I may be wrong but I think they Believed that their Emperor was basically God)''
:'''Reply'''Hitler surely wasn´t a Christian but the Germans were 50,6%Protestants, 45,8%Catholics and 3,6%others...okay, that was 1950, but i think there is no big difference to the 40´s
There is always a chance... Hitler could have had a stroke and died. The emperor of Japan could have been assasinated; The war was not a sure thing until it already happened.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

:''For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars.'' What? That isn't even true...
[[User:gbjxc|Greg]]

''If you look at it that way, then nothing is ever inevitable.''

The only inevitable thing is a promise of God; It was inevitable that Isaac would be born, it was inevitable that Jesus come, it is inevitable that the antichrist take over the world.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Contrary to the top notion, war can also be fought by states who don't expect a military victory. Some states may be willing to fight simply to prove their willingness to defend a policy (or even their sovereignty) simply as a means of deterrence against further acts of aggression. The Munich Analogy invoked by so many hawks nowadays may or may not be a legitimate argument these days. Democratic peace theory has proven relatively sound, so conflict between such states as were involved in WWII (if history were to repeat itself today) would likely be watered down by treaties or intervened upon by some sort of international order. As to the question of whether (I am assuming WWII, WWI was quite an unfortunate mousetrap of events) world war was inevitable, I have to answer no. Unfortunately by 1938 and the Sudetenland debacle, it was probably too late, and given greater international consensus on Wilsonian liberalism an effective intervention could have been possible in the early stages of German rearmament and Hitler's ascent to power. The pacific theatre is an interesting case. Post- Russo-Japan war Japan has been accused of being "asianist" to a fault. Though proletarian/communist movements were prevalent in Taisho-democracy era Japan, growing authoritarian power (totalitarian by some accounts, however the emperor Showa, or Hirohito, was merely a puppet for political elites) was able to quelch such uprisings and effectively redirect the growing mass-cultural mediums of Japan into those of nationalist predilections. For those interested in more Japanese innovation in the early use of mass media should check out an old film called Northern Lights, from 1941.

Brian

:'''Reply''' Why does God have to come into everything!?? All those things are only inevitable if you take the bible as fact. The Catholic Church even acknowledges that the bible is not a history text book.[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

Brigham's Homeboy
Ben, Ben, Ben. Where did you read that Christians haven't fought each other for 1500 years? It was wrong. One could cite the case of the extreamely Christian Justinian (emperor of the Byzantine Empire)invading and conquoring Italy in the mid 500s AD, the litterally constant fighting between Italian states since the fall of Rome until Italian Unification in the 1800s. You could look at the Papal Sanctioned Normon Conquest of the very Christian England in 1066, the Hundred Year War in the 14th Century (between England and France), the 30 Years War-proportionally the most devestating war in German History and fought between Catholics and Protestants, the War of Spanish Succession in the 17th century, the Great Northern War between Russia and Sweeden starting around 1700, the Napoleonic Wars and even our own US Revolutionary and Civil Wars. All of these wars involved Christians slaughtering each other. One could certainly argue that Christians haven't grasped the full meaning of the Gospel, but it is quite obvious that neither Nazism or the Japanese Religion were necessary to push Christians to war.

That said, freedom of choice is a vital part of life on Earth. We are allowed to choose our actions, just not the consequences. Herr Hitler was a nut, and once he was in power it would have taken violence to oust him, or stop him, but the German people didn't have to vote him into power. Winston Churchill said once that there was never a war more easily prevented than World War Two. Someone just had to choose to act and it could have been stoped.

:Hitler was a sensitive man. It was all the fault of the war-mongering generals. [[User:Hitler was a sensitive man|Hitler was a sensitive man]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I regret to see that there is no footnote or citation for the assertation that "Hitler was a sensitive man." I recomend that you watch the musical number "Springtime for Hitler," from Mel Brook's "The Producers." If only it wern't a massive joke, then you might have a point.
While many of Hitler's Generals assisted him quite willingly with his various unprovoked and brutal attacks on innocent nations, he was undoutably the driving force behind the Nazi ambition to take over and enslave the world. His Generals didn't propose the extermination of the Jewish and Slavic races. Hitler proposed that in "Mein Kampf." The majority of his generals didn't feel ready to invade Poland or to fight the Allied Nations.
While the German People and Military need to take responsibility for their actions, they were guided and spurred on by Hitler. Adolf led them to hights of barbarism rarely surpassed in human history. Whoever thinks that Hitler was a sensitive man should read more history, pariticularly "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shier, "Stalin and Hitler, Parallel Lives" or anything by a real historian.

== '''None of the Above:''' ==

Here's the real question, and it is one that perhaps can't be answered: Is a future world war inevitable?

--[[User:Janedoe|jane doe]] 23:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Don't see why world war would be inevitable. In 5000 years of recorded history, world war was a peculiar attribute of only one century: the 20th century. It was the product of philosophies of that century and it should be no more inevitable than the Black Plague would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

"World War" was only used to describe WW1 and WW2. If you look back at Classical Antiquity (where the world population was about, say, 100 million or less), many of the wars then were far deadlier per capita than either of the world wars. And we're talking about ''man'' here... Not every person accepts Jesus. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Homosexuality Research

2008-01-28T00:28:38Z

David R: Reverted edits by Jercox (Talk); changed back to last version by CSGuy

There has been a tremendous amount of '''homosexuality research''' since the the latter part of the 20th century in regards to the causes and effects and homosexuality. Below are some resources in regards to research on homosexuality:
==Homosexuality Research in Regards to the Causes of Homosexuality==
Below is some research on homosexuality in regards to the causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]

==Homosexuality Research in Regards to the Effects of Homosexuality on an Individual==
Below are some resources in regards to the effects of homosexuality on an individual (although certainly effects on individuals have effects on a large society as well):

*[[Homosexuality and Mental Health]]

==Homosexuality Research In Regards to the Effects on a Society==
Below are some resources in respect to the effects of homosexuality on a society:

*[[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]
*[[Homosexuality and Murders]]
*[[Teen Homosexuality]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity Homosexuality and Promiscuity]

==Homosexuality Statistics==
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Disease]]

2008-01-26T05:28:55Z

David R: Protected "Template:DR bodytext" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

<span style="float: right; align: center">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; width: 350px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed; padding: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #00CCFF">
Hello, my name is David. I was a student in [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly's]] World History class that started this project. It has been a great privilege being a part in the making of this site. I consider the all the negative I see - from vandalism to blogs to the MSM - to be a sign that we are doing something right.

I am a devout Christian who is openly involved with my church. I am a student leader who used to lead games in Senior High Youth Group and now controls the computer to display slide shows, music, and movies. In addition, I co-lead a small group of about 8 boys. My church activities are a fulfilling and essential part of my life.

I like working with computers. Flash, Dreamweaver, and Photoshop are just some of the programs that I have learned. Web and Media Design is a field that I can see myself going into. I recently was accepted to Ball State for Fall 2008. I am looking forward to going and getting to take part in their new media programs.

I know how to play 3 instruments: guitar, drums, and...suprise! tuba. I go to a program that offers music lessons at a local church. Twice a year, I participate in a concert.

I also enjoy playing sports. I have played basketball and baseball in my highschool years and plan to continue through college. I am homeschooled, so being given the opportunity to be on a homeschool basketball and baseball team has really been a blessing to me. All the guys on our basketball team are close and many of them are in the same graduating class as me.

When asked where I go to school, I can see the preconceived social notions forming as soon the word "homeschool" leaves my lips. But the issue of social activities is really a ''non''-issue for me.

You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new comment here] if you have any questions, comments, or compliments.
</div>
</span>