Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Humor in the Bible

2009-05-19T03:16:28Z

EdmundB: It is well known that there was no humor prior to Christ.

{{speedy delete}}
* "The door turns on its hinges, and the lazy man on his bed" (Proverbs 26:14). <ref>[http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/15_10/biblehumor Jewish Humor... In the Bible?]</ref>

* [[Humor]] brings [[God]] closer to humankind. For instance, God seems more understandable and less aloof when he is sarcastic. We mortals note that even omniscience and omnipotence do not prevent one from being hurt by straying children. Humorous stories and exaggerations make the [[moral]] lessons of the [[Hebrew]] [[Bible]] more memorable ... <ref>[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm Humor in the Hebrew Bible] - Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D.</ref>

*"It is better to be living in an [[angle]] of the house-top, than with a bitter-tongued woman in a wide house." (Proverbs 25:24)

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Humor]]

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-28T00:53:26Z

EdmundB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

IMO, some of the answers - and their evaluation - are a little bit problematic.

*The Great War was not a suburbian soccer match where the mothers of the players pretend not to keep score. Germany asked for an armistice. Unconditionally. Austria-Hungary, too. To stay in the picture above: that's the diplomatic equivalent of crying uncle. Yes, they have lost. Big time.

*Italy hadn't entered the war on the side of the central forces. It choose to enter the war on side of the allied forces in 1915. The history of Italians alliances is quite complex, but it seems to be not fair to implicate that they ''switched sides during the war''. They just picked their team late. BTW, the musings of B. Mussolini were as important to these processes as were the opinions of H. Clinton to the War in the Gulf: just another flip-flopping politician of the opposition

*Russia: you accepted answers like
:*''The Allies won the “Great War” or World War I in 1918''
:*''The Triple Entente won World War I. ''
:*''The Allies (Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I. '' and even
:*''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.''
FYI: Russia wasn't represented in Versailles, it isn't counted with the victors. The ''triple entente'' was dead in 1918. And Russia ''lost'' more land and population than any other country.

For educational purposes, you should look at a map of Europe before - and after the Great War. The shifted frontiers give a clue which countries had lost - and which hadn't.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:03, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, your rant is a criticism looking for a flaw. The problem is that you haven't found a flaw. I don't think any of my students tried to use a word "suburbian" either, as you do.

: If you can identify a specific error, then let's see it. So far, you haven't been able to do that, although obviously you are trying very hard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:04, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::suburban / suburbian - sorry for the ''i'': Your students have good spelling skills. Color me impressed.

::However: A student should be able - after taking your lesson - to identify the parties of the Great War. As you outlined, the outcome of the war lead to many grudges held by different nations, and these grudges played an important role in the time to come.

::And I don't want to talk about subtleties like Canada, New Zealand and Australia not being '''colonies''' at the time of the war, but '''dominions'''.

::No, it's about the part two of the major participants had in this war.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:20, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Clement, failing to find a specific error, you resort to vague generalities, questionable opinion, and debatable semantics (e.g., a dominion is subservient to the British monarch as a colony is).

::: Keep looking. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I don't understand you: You are lambasting me for inserting an ''i'' in ''suburban'', but you don't have a problem with the sentence ''''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.''? That's part of a ''fantastic analysis''...
:::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:06, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: If you think that statement is wrong, then which country do you think gained more land than that group? Again, your lack of specificity reflects a lack of identifiable errors. And surely you don't doubt the loss of life by those four nations, or their gain in power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: What land did Russia gain? What power? It became place of a civil war, and Poland defeated in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920! To be as specific as it seems to be necessary: '''Russia didn't gain power due to the Great War. Russia did lose land due to the Great War.'''
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:27, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: That took some time. A propos ''vague generalities'': Do you see the problem with this sentence ''The Allies (Britain, France, '''Russia''', Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I '' now? It is less problematic than the statement discussed above, but as the teacher, you should at a comment to this one, too.
:::::: Or this ''good answer'': ''In World War One, no one really “won” in the true sense of the word; '''the frontiers remained much as they had been before the war''' .''
:::::: What about Poland, the Baltic States, the ''Free town of Danzig'' - the whole Ottoman Empire dissolved! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:52, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you misunderstand or overlook the meaning of the word "frontier". You also seem excessively critical. Are you as critical of [[liberals]], or this yet another example of a [[double standard]] common among liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

== Canada a colony during WWI? ==

Clement claimed that Canada was not a colony of Britain during WWI, but everything I've seen demonstrates that Canada was not yet independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

*You are completely correct, Andy.

<blockquote>
"It was the First World War that accelerated the process to independence. The major colonies played a role of such magnitude that they no longer could be considered mere colonies of Great Britain. 
The international status of Canada evolved rapidly in the post-World War period: in '''1919''', Canada was one of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles and was elected as an independent member of the League of Nations. '''In 1926''', the Balfour resolution was adopted at the Imperial Conference. Arthur Balfour presented this resolution to the Imperial conference of the self-governing dominions. In it Great Britain recognized that the Dominions were "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".
'''Thus, by 1931, Canada and the other Dominions had become "autonomous communities...equal in status" to Great Britain."''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canadian-History-2762/canada-independence.htm]
</blockquote>

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy I think that you have entirely missed his point. Clement sought to draw a distinction between the status of colony and that of dominion. He didn't say that Canada was independent. I think his point was that Canada was more properly referred to as a dominion at the time. Whether that is a distinction of any significance I don't know. I note that he referred to the issue as a subtlety and said that he did not wish to raise the point. Obviously the far more significant issue for him was the characterisation of Russia's post-war situation. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 19:41, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well, clearly Canada's legal status, during World War I was that of a colony, and by 1931 it was considered autonomous with the Balfour resolution being implemented. It is too picky to quibble over public perceptions, rather than the information I gave above, detailing the legal definition, and that is it was certainly not an autonomous dominion prior to 1930. If not that, it was a colony, and by any other name, it still was one. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:08, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::TK, I think you may not have understood your own quote. The quote does not draw the distinction that you appear to suggest, between British controlled colonies and independent dominions. Dominions may or may not be independent. Your quote merely says that by 1931 the dominions had become autonomous communities. That is not why they were called dominions. Canada had used the dominion title [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#Canada_and_Confederation since 1867] without gaining any extra autonomy or new powers with the title change. I suspect that might have been what Clement was talking about (aboot?). I think that Andy may have made the same mistake, equating the dominion title with independence. I believe that the process is slightly more subtle than that with dominion standing somewhere in between colony and independence. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 20:53, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-27T23:41:06Z

EdmundB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Exact sciences

2009-03-22T05:01:49Z

EdmundB: Replacing as per talk page (I see that 2 out of 3 of you have been blocked anyway)

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]]
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Exact sciences

2009-03-12T22:49:51Z

EdmundB: /* Creation Science */

==Witnessing Evolution==

Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:By evolution, I mean the [[theory of evolution through natural selection]], which posits that significant new species have come into being without intelligent intervention.

:Whenever we discuss evolution, we need to cut through the mental fog and specify which [[aspects of evolution]] we're talking about. Most evolution opponents grant that a species can develop new characteristics in the wild (see [[microevolution]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Perhaps it was just a contemporary witnessing of [[adaptation]] - an ability it's designer gave it to deal with differing environmental contexts. --[[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] [[User talk:Qwestor|Talk]] 11:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

==Creation Science==
Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --[[User:JoshuaStanley|JoshuaStanley]] 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::I see that creation science and baraminology have both been removed from the exact sciences list. I regard that as an error. There is nothing fuzzy at all about creation. It is based on scripture and is as precise as any of the listed items. In fact it is probably more precise than any of them. It is in no way comparable to evolution which consists of guesses and speculation. If any of you can provide a cogent reason for the exclusion of creation science and baraminology then please do so. If not I intend to replace them. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 18:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Meteorology ==

I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Simon Peres

2009-03-01T01:29:46Z

EdmundB:

'''Simon Peres''' has been a national leader of [[Israel]] and is friendly toward America.

==View of America==

He said, "America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there's been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land -- no land from [[Germany]], no land from [[Korea]], no land from [[Japan]]. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty -- for itself and for freedom-loving people around the world." [http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2008/speech_romney08.asp] Clearly he was unaware that Britain, France, China and Canada likewise took no lands after World War II and that, in addition to the Unitied States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Kingdom also took part in the Korean War.

[[Category:Politicians]]

Exact sciences

2009-03-01T01:10:48Z

EdmundB: Reinsert items wrongly removed (by vandal?). Nothing fuzzy about creation.

Simon Peres

2009-03-01T00:59:50Z

EdmundB: Improved

'''Simon Peres''' has been a national leader of [[Israel]] and is friendly toward America.

==View of America==

He said, "America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there's been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land -- no land from [[Germany]], no land from [[Korea]], no land from [[Japan]]. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty -- for itself and for freedom-loving people around the world." [http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2008/speech_romney08.asp] Clearly he was unaware that Britain, France, China and Canada likewise took no lands after World War II and that, in addition to the Unitied States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom also took part in the Korean War.

[[Category:Politicians]]

Exact sciences

2009-02-22T03:53:59Z

EdmundB:

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]]
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-02-22T03:14:47Z

EdmundB: Add creation science

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]]
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[creation science]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-02-22T02:35:36Z

EdmundB:

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]]
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]

[[Category:Science]]