Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Byron White

2007-10-05T04:10:37Z

Lohengrin: wanted page and the sum is 94

'''Byron Raymond White''', (June 8, 1917 – April 15, 2002) was a Supreme Court Justice of The United States. See Wikpedidia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White Byron White].

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-30T09:49:49Z

Lohengrin: /* Spell-Checking */

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Creation of a new article ==
At Conservapedia it is easy to create a new article as can be seen by our resource: [[Conservapedia:How to create a new article|How to create a new article]].

When you create a new article, please do one or both of the following so people can find your article:
* Link your article from one or more other articles as appropriate.
* Put one or more [[Category tag|Category tags]] at the bottom of your article, preferably for a category that already exists.
=== Persons ===
To facilitate the the alphabetization of individuals, add '''<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Surname, Given Middle}}</nowiki>''' to an article. In this format, ''Surname'', ''Given'' and ''Middle'' are placeholders. The placeholder ''Surname'' is the person's last name, and the placeholder ''Given'' is the person's given name or Christian name in the case of individuals baptized into the Christian faith. ''Middle'' is optional, and can either be the complete middle name or an initial. Names of individuals with multiple or concatenated last names should substitute whatever is appropriate to generate correct the alphabetical listing for surname. E.g., Hillary Rodham Clinton should be '''<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Rodham Clinton, Hillary}}</nowiki>''' and Vicente Fox Quesada should be '''<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Fox Quesada, Vicente}}</nowiki>'''.

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*If it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, ''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE). See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.
==Spell-Checking==

Always use correct spelling. All recent browsers, as with Google, can be equipped with a in-browser spell checker. If you have one of the following browsers, please download the spell checker at the link provided:

*''Internet Explorer'' - download at [http://www.iespell.com/ iespell]
*''Opera'' - download at [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ GNU Aspell]
*''Mozilla Firefox'' - download at [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Spellbound] or update to the latest version of [http://www.getfirefox.com/ Firefox], which has a built-in spelling checker.

Bad spelling makes your article look illiterate and thus bad.

==Spelling==
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English.

==Citing Sources and Using Footnotes==
Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the [[public domain]]. Please do not cite [[Wiki|wikis]] as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

Please also see: [[Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help]]

==Discussion page ==
[[Conservapedia: Discussion page - technical help]]

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]]

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Book of Ruth

2007-05-30T08:56:45Z

Lohengrin: great-grandmother

'''Ruth''' is, in secular literary terms, a pastoral romance, where the poor but good widow Ruth, and her equally-poor-and-widowed mother-in-law, [[Naomi]] triumph over all and become part of the lineage of the future [[King David]]. In literary terms, it's the best short story from antiquity. In theological terms, it sings in joy to the salvatory grace of the convert.

Naomi and her husband had two sons. The family had emigrated to [[Moab]] (modern [[Jordan]]) where her sons married Moabite women. Naomi's husband, and then her sons died, leaving Naomi with two childless daughters-in-law. Naomi prepared to return to her homeland and say good bye to her daughters-in-law, whom she implored to go back to live with their paternal families and find new husbands, as both women were still young.

Naomi sent [[Orpah]] (the source of the mispelling of Oprah Winfrey's misspelled first name) back to her home with a kiss, but Ruth clung to her and insisted on joining Naomi. At this point, the poetic and theological majesty of the book is made: '''Ruth 1:15-16:'''

<blockquote>Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.</blockquote>

This is the hymn of the convert, the psalm to the rights of the convert.

So Ruth traveled by the side of her mother-in-law to [[Bethlehem]] where Naomi was recognized with some cheer, but Naomi told them of her plight and sorrow and that her life had become bitter.

In Chapter 2, we have the barley harvest, where Ruth tells Naomi she wishes to go into the fields and pick up whatever the harvesters had missed, and in that way provide food for herself and Naomi. She turned up in the field of a man named [[Boaz]] who was a relative of Naomi, and had heard of Ruth's kindness to Naomi. He looked out for Ruth, telling her to continue to pick the leftovers in his field, as he had instructed that she was not to be bothered. When Ruth went back to Naomi at the end of the day and Naomi asked her where she had found such favor, she was pleased to learn it was with Boaz, a close relative. Ruth continued to pick in Boaz's field and provide for her mother-in-law until the harvest was finished, at which time Naomi told Ruth the Jewish custom of how to show interest in being taken as a wife, and who better than with Boaz? Boaz was flattered, especially since she had chosen him, a man along in years, when she was so young. There was another closer relative who had first right to marry Ruth; the relative, however, refused to confuse the inheritance of his own line and disclaimed the match, clearing the way for Boaz to take Ruth as his wife. The two were married, and first child born was considered to be Naomi's son carrying on the line of her deceased husband, as was the Jewish custom. And that child was named [[Obed]], he the father of [[Jesse]], and grandfather of [[David]].

Ruth was the great-grandmother of [[King David]].

[[Category:Biblical books]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]

Book of Ruth

2007-05-30T08:20:09Z

Lohengrin: copyedit

'''Ruth''' is, in secular literary terms, a pastoral romance, where the poor but good widow Ruth, and her equally-poor-and-widowed mother-in-law, [[Naomi]] triumph over all and become part of the lineage of the future [[King David]].

Naomi and her husband had two sons. The family had emigrated to [[Moab]] (modern [[Jordan]]) where her sons married Moabite women. Naomi's husband, and then her sons died, leaving Naomi with two childless daughters-in-law. Naomi prepared to return to her homeland and say good bye to her daughters-in-law, whom she implored to go back to live with their paternal families and find new husbands, as they were still both young.

Naomi sent [[Orpah]] (the source of the mispelling of Oprah Winfrey's misspelled first name) back to her home with a kiss, but Ruth clung to her and insisted on joining Naomi. At this point, the poetic and theological majesty of the book is made: Ruth 1:15-16:

<blockquote>Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.</blockquote>

This is the hymn of the convert, the psalm to the rights of the convert.

So Ruth traveled by the side of her mother-in-law to [[Bethlehem]] where Naomi was recognized with some cheer, but Naomi told them of her plight and sorrow and that her life had become bitter.

In Chapter 2, we have the barley harvest, where Ruth tells Naomi she wishes to go into the fields and pick up whatever the harvesters had missed, and in that way provide food for herself and Naomi. She turned up in the field of a man named [[Boaz]] who was a relative of Naomi, and had heard of Ruth's kindness to Naomi. He looked out for Ruth, telling her to continue to pick the leftovers in his field, as he had instructed that she was not to be bothered. When Ruth went back to Naomi at the end of the day and Naomi asked her where she had found such favor, she was pleased to learn it was with Boaz, a close relative. Ruth continued to pick in Boaz's field and provide for her mother-in-law until the harvest was finished, at which time Naomi told Ruth the Jewish custom of how to show interest in being taken as a wife, and who better than with Boaz? Boaz was flattered, especially since she had chosen him, a man along in years, when she was so young. There was another closer relative who had first right to marry Ruth. Boaz went to him and he said he would marry Ruth, but when he learned he would also retain Naomi, he balked and cleared the way for Boaz to take Ruth as his wife. The two were married, and first child born was considered to be Naomi's son carrying on the line of her deceased husband, as was the Jewish custom. And that child was the grandfather of King David.

[[Category:Biblical books]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]

Greek language

2007-05-30T07:59:25Z

Lohengrin: redo/slash and burn

Greek is the most ancient continuously written language in human history. It securely dates, as a written language from ca. 800 BC as the language of Homer and continues continuously to the present day, as four to five different languages through time. Homeric Greek, or simply '''Homeric''' is the earliest literary language, a form of Attic-Ionic. There is late Archaic Greek, which follows Homeric, and culminates in Classical Greek, with Aeschylus and Sophocles, and then later Classical Greek, with Plato and Aristotle, into the strange plays of Euripides and the obscene plays of Aristophanes.

The Greek spread by Alexander was literary. By the 1st century AD, and with the New Testament, it was ''koine'', 'common' Greek, the sort of Greek that can be compared to well-spoken illegal immigrants from Central American in the United States. Accented, using slang, etc.

Some centuries before, the Jews of Alexandria rendered a version of the Old Testament into Greek. This is is called the Septuagint, the [[LXX]], 'the seventy' (or 'seventy-two' according to some good sources). This version of the Old Testament differs from that used by most Protestants, but continues to be used by the Catholics (in Latin) and by the Greek Orthodox (untranslated). Most Protestants follow Luther in following the Jewish canon.

The early Greek language no longer exists in a spoken form today, modern Greek being as different from Classical Greek as Old English is from current English.

Modern Greek is the modern variety of the Greek language, but separate from ancient Greek. It is the primary language of Greece and Cyprus.

===See Also ===
[[Mycenaean language]]

[[Category:Languages]]

Quetzalcoatl

2007-05-30T07:34:53Z

Lohengrin: cat Mormon myths

[[Image:Quetzacoatl.jpg|thumb|300px|Quetzacoatl depicted as a man]]
'''Quetzacoatl''' was the god of many ancient [[Mesoamerican]] cultures. He was a god of wind and air, portrayed either as a feathered serpent or a man.

[[Category:mythology]]
[[Category:Mormon mythology]

Talk:How Old is the Earth According to the Bible?

2007-05-30T07:30:06Z

Lohengrin: Flat Earth ism

Is this supposed to be a debate, or an article, or what?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 16:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know if this article is worth keeping, but I've rewritten it and added a couple of halfway decent sources (though they're not as good as I'd like).--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 16:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== How old is the earth according to the bible? ==

The Bible doesn’t specify how old the earth is the estimate of the earth being 6000 years old was only [[Bishop James Ussher|Bishop James Ussher's]] calculations and many people such as old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists believe that the idea of the earth being billions of years old does not contradict the bible.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 10:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Flat Earth ism ==

The Universe is sagans old (billions and billions of years). Our system is better than 4 billions of years old. Those who suggest that that Creation occured in October 4004 BC need to undergo psychiatric treatment. The Bible is an inspired human document.

Book of Ruth

2007-04-18T10:15:34Z

Lohengrin: convert

'''Ruth''' is, in secular literary terms, a pastoral romance, where the poor but good widow Ruth, and her equally-poor-and-widowed mother-in-law, [[Naomi]] triumph over all and become part of the Royal House of David. It's the best short story from antiquity.

Naomi had two sons by her husband Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion. The family had emigrated to Moab (modern [[Jordan]]). Naomi's husband, and then her sons died, without issue; she was left with two childless daughters-in-law. Naomi set off for home into the land of [[Canaan]] (this was not yet the Kingdom of Israel).

She managed to send [[Orpah]] ([[Oprah Winfrey]]'s mispelled first name) back to her home, but Ruth insisted on joining Naomi. At this point, the poetic and theological majesty of the book is made: Ruth 1:15-16:

<blockquote>Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.</blockquote>

This is the hymn of the convert, the psalm to the rights of the convert.

So Ruth trudged back to suburban [[Jerusalem]] with her mother-in-law, to [[Bethlehem]]. Her mother-in-law, Naomi, was recognized with some cheer, but Naomi was bitter, as a woman with no living descendants, and only a widowed daughter-in-law as a companion.

In Chapter 2, we have the [[barley]] harvest, where Naomi has warmed up to her daughter-in-law, and gives her some advice. Naomi was related to [[Boaz]], a man without a wife. When Ruth suggests she exercise her right to glean the after-pickings in the fields, Naomi encourages her, and gives practical advice on how to seduce Boaz.

Boaz is entranced by Ruth, and gives Ruth advice on how to cheat on the harvest. Boaz is also in love with how Ruth has been good to Naomi. Boaz does some ethnic things, and at the end, Ruth marries him, with Naomi occupying a priveliged space in the family.

King John

2007-04-18T09:59:25Z

Lohengrin: Minor corrections

'''King John''' (December 24, 1166 – 18/19 October 1216) was a [[medieval]] king of [[England]]. He was termed (or nicknamed) John Lackland; he was the son of [[Henry II]] (Henry FitzEmpress) and was the younger brother and successor of [[Richard I]] (Richard the Lionheart), Richard I of England. He was King of England, Lord of [[Ireland]], Duke of [[Normandy]] and [[Aquitaine]] and Count of [[Anjou]] from April 6, 1199 until his death.

John succeeded his brother to the throne and was largely regarded as a conceited, lazy, selfish and tyrannical ruler. It is said that during his fits of temper, he would roll on the floor, chewing on the legs of tables, rugs, or anything else in sight{{fact}}.

Whilst almost certainly not as bad as his legend now depicts, he was forced to sign the Magna Carta documents in 1215 by the nobility disgruntled with his leadership and England's heavy losses in France. This document limited the power of the king and established the English Parliament. One of its most important statements was that the king was under the law. John believed that he ''was'' the law. It was a series of laws which granted greater freedoms to the nobility and limited the powers of the King.

Part of the reason for the Magna Carta was due to how England chose the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], the most senior [[Archbishop]] of the [[Church of England]]. The King's choice was rejected by Rome and King John was excommunicated and eventually had to concede to the [[Pope]]'s demands.

Eventually King John broke the Magna Carta charter and the nobility replaced him with his son [[King Henry III]].

King John was the inspiration for Prince John in the [[Robin Hood]] stories.

[[Category:UK Monarchs]]

Gospel of Mark

2007-04-18T09:54:20Z

Lohengrin:

==The Gospel of Mark==

According to the [[Q]] theory, [[Mark]] is the earliest [[gospel]]; [[Matthew]], as did [[Luke]] and (differently by) [[John]] used Mark to write their books. With Matthew and Luke, [[Mark]] is accounted the first-written of the [[synoptic gospels]].

The second [[Gospel]] is mainly concerned with the [[Galilee|Galilean]] ministry of [[Christ]], and the circumstances during the last week at [[Jerusalem]].it begins with [[Christ| Jesus']] [[baptism]] and temptation. The main potrtion of the Gospel, concerning the public [[ministry]], [[Passion of Christ| Passion]], [[death]], and [[Resurrection]] of Jesus.

Mark doesn't mention certain events mentioned by the other synoptic evangelists. The geneologies, the appearance of the Holy Ghost to Mary, the birth of the Saviour's cousin, John the Bapitst etc. are all eschewed in favor of getting right into the beginnings of Jesus' public life.

Mark is much more concerned with Christ's acts than with His teachings, though two of these teachings 4:3-32 and 13:5-37 are fairly long. The miracles take up almost 25% of the Gospel. This impresses upon the reader Christ's almighty power and dominion over all physcal laws. The first chapter shows three miracles: the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of [[Peter]]'s mother-in-law, and the healing of a [[leper]]. Eighteen miracles are recorded and all but three occur in the first eight chapters. Only two of these miracles (7: 31-37and 8:22-26) are peculiar to Mark. Mark, however shows details not found in the other Synoptics. Mark has only four parables: the sower (4:3-9), the seed growing secretly (4:26-29), the mustard seed (4:30-32), and the wicked husbandman (12:1-9). The second of is percular to Mark.

Mark gives a face to the human feelings and emotions of Christ.
The frailities of the apostles are much more graphic than in the parallel narratives the other two [[Synoptic]]s.

==Who ''really'' wrote it?==
Most early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two people Mark and Peter. Mark being "Peter's copyist", transcribing what Peter preached. [[Irenaeus]] says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" <ref>Against Heresies, 3.1</ref>

John Mark, mentioned in 2 Timothy, is also sometimes put forward.

There are problems with the ending of Mark. Biblical studies have many problems with the usual English version of the ending of the gospel. Basically, a page or two got torn off early in the document's history.

==Style==
The Second Gospel was written in Greek, being that Greek was widely spoken in the Roman empire in the first century. [[Koine Greek|Greek]] was the ''lingua franca'' of the times.
Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek.

The Second Gospel uses 1333 different words, of which 58 are proper names. Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Compared to Luke, which has more than 250 peculiar words, Mark has only a third as many unique words. Mark shares 150 words with the other Synoptics. 15 are shared only by [[The Gospel of John| John]] and 11 others by one or other of the Synoptic '''and''' John.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:New Testament]]

Charles Martel

2007-04-04T07:22:01Z

Lohengrin: a bit of fun

Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) lived from AD 686 to 741. He was the Frankish Mayor of the Palace (AD 719 to 741). Martel was the grandfather of [[Charlemagne]], and crushed the [[Muslim]] armies in the [[Battle of Tours]]. [[Luis Alfonso]] is his heir-male, and by blood, king of France, Spain and Two-Sicilies.

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-04-04T07:00:09Z

Lohengrin: The Mormon problem.

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.

John Lackland

2007-04-04T06:47:57Z

Lohengrin: aggh

'''King John''', John Lackland was the son of [[Henry II]] and the brother and successor of [[Richard Plantagenet|Richard the Lionheart]], Richard I of England, as John, King of England. He lived from December 24, 1166 to October 18, 1216. John succeeded his brother to the throne and proved to be a lazy, selfish and tyrannical ruler. It is said that during his fits of temper, he would roll on the floor, chewing on the legs of tables, rugs, or anything else in sight{{fact}}.

His oppression finally drove his knights and barons to take him prisoner and force him to sign the [[Magna Carta]].This document limited the power of the king and established the English Parliament. One of its most important statements was that the king was under the law. John believed that he was the law.

John Lackland was the inspiration for Prince John in the [[Robin Hood]] stories.

[[Category:UK Monarchs]]

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-04-04T06:21:16Z

Lohengrin: Use correct spelling as often as possible.

==Only for Americans?==

I am a conservative christian, but being a conservative, bible-believing christian does NOT automatically make you an American, and vice versa. One of my only qualms regarding this website is the fact that is biased towards America/ns. I don't think it's fair that any articles that I write can be edited so that they use only American spelling, but I'm not allowed to change spelling anywhere in any entry. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit here.
Anyway, I just think that this project should be garnered towards christians all over the globe - not just in the US!--[[User:Catherine Morland|Catherine Morland]] 17:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia was started by a group of patriotic Americans, so please forgive any pro american bias. We want spelling to be consistent throughout the site, so we ask that Aamerican spelling be used. you can fix spelling errors anywhere you want, as long as you are not britishizing or otherwise changing american spellings that you might disagree with. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Spell-checker==

I don't think ''everyone'' has an in-browser spell-checker. Internet Explorer does not offer it. To my knowledge, it is only equipped to Mozilla Firefox browsers. The same is the case with the Google tool bar. I think we should reword it. I have no suggestion on how to state it, but I'm sure we will come up with something. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:it's the ABC/check on the Google toolbar.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Too bad there is not a fact checker too, or maybe a translation from 3rd grade level writing to high school level writing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::That would certainly be helpful. Look into that :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:There are spell checkers for [http://www.iespell.com/ Explorer], [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ Opera], and [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Firefox/Mozilla]. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are (saved those links a good while ago), but it's a start. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a free spelling checker which is MediaWiki compatible. A friend of mine installed it on another wiki. (Till then, I use TextPad's spellcheck; the only problem with that, is markup like double brackets get flagged as errors.)

Another solution, used successfully in Wikipedia's early days, is to post a list of commonly misspelled words. Then users ([[wiki-gnome]]s) can [[search]] for articles containing the misspelt words. I was part of this spell-check project "back in the day". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikis as sources ==

Does this rule also apply to "External Links" (and "Further Reading"), or only to inline references? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==''Always'' use AD and BC?==
That reads as if all years are to an era designation. Are we supposed to use AD 2007 when referring to current events? Whenever I sign something...
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
am I expected to go back in and edit it to read
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)?
I doubt it.

I think this needs some wordsmithing, and propose this substitute language:

:In dates, if it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, use the designations BC and AD (not the substitutes BCE and CE).

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:12, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)

How is it now? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 15:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Date format ==

Why do we have the preference for the date style "July 4, 1776", when the wiki software can automatically convert dates to the users' preferences? All it takes is for dates to be written in the form <nowiki>[[4 July]] [[1776]] ''OR'' [[July 4]] [[1776]]</nowiki> and the software ''should'' display them in the user's preferred format. The user preference page[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Preferences] Date and Time tab allows one to set the preferred format, but it seems as though the conversion ability has not been switched on in Conservapedia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:...no. The preferences don't do that, I think. They change how we see the date and time in pages like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&action=history this article's history]. Go check it out, it works. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Reading further into it, I see what you mean. Hm... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, after some checking, I assume you mean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dates this] config setting (linking it here so the webmaster doesn't have to look)? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, that's it. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the user's date preferences are ''only'' for this, however. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use correct spelling as often as possible. ==

Sweet thought. This protected article seems to be warm and fuzzy about illiteracy.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 02:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Original sin

2007-03-31T05:42:00Z

Lohengrin: grammar; minor tweak

According to Christian theology, '''Original sin''' is the state of being sinful into which all people are born<ref>Psalm 51:5</ref>. Original sin refers to the very first [[sin]], committed by [[Adam]] and [[Eve]]. Original sin is sometimes referred to as "the Fall". [[St. Augustine]] introduced original sin to Christians.

For Christians, [[Paul]]'s discussion in Romans Chapter 5, v. 12 ''ff'' is operative:

<blockquote>Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.</blockquote>

Elsewhere, Paul discusses the idea that Adam and Eve, as sinless creatures of God, were immortal in the flesh. The consequence of their sin was death, mortality, a sentence they passed onto all their progeny. Jesus, as the [[New Adam]] was a new, sinless creation of man; while capable of sin, Jesus never sinned, and was therefore exempt from the death penalty. But he died, and quite horribly in fact. The why of the death of Christ is wrapped up in the doctrine of the [[Atonement]]; suffice to say Christ (in his human nature) chose to suffer the penalty of human sin as an atonement for it.

Original sin

2007-03-31T05:26:45Z

Lohengrin: slash and burn

According to Christian theology, '''Original sin''' is the state of being sinful into which all people are born<ref>Psalm 51:5</ref>. Original sin refers to the very first [[sin]], committed by [[Adam]] and [[Eve]]. Original sin is sometimes referred to as "the Fall". [[St. Augustine]] introduced original sin to Christians.

For Christians, [[Paul]]'s discussion in Romans Chapter 5, v. 12 ''ff'' is operative:

<blockquote>Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.</blockquote>

Elsewhere, Paul discusses the idea that Adam and Eve, as sinless creatures of God, were immortal in the flesh. The consequence of their sin was death, mortality, a sentence they passed onto all their progeny. Jesus, as the [[New Adam]] was a new, sinless creation of man; while capable of sin, Jesus never sinned, and was therefore exempt from the death penalty. But he died, and quite horribly in fact. The why of the death of Christ is wrapped up in the doctrine of the [[Atonement]]; suffice to say Christ chose suffer the penalty of human sin as an atonement for it.

Caspian Sea

2007-03-30T03:14:57Z

Lohengrin: Smile!

The largest [[freshwater]] [[lake]] in the [[world]]. Located on the north edge of the [[Middle East]], between [[Europe]] and [[Asia]], with an area of 149,200 square miles. As the Volga and Ural hurl freshwater into it, and as the northern upper-levels of it are fresh, the Shi'ites at the southern border decline to use modern sanitation and pump raw sewege into the lake (having decided that true caviar should be obsolete).

[[category:Lakes]]

Talk:Creationism

2007-03-28T10:51:05Z

Lohengrin: /* Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creationism

2007-03-28T10:50:10Z

Lohengrin: Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

Date of creation

2007-03-28T10:44:54Z

Lohengrin: big band

9:00 AM, Friday, October 26, 4004 BC according to certain followers of Archbishop Ussher.

Gospel of Mark

2007-03-28T10:37:21Z

Lohengrin:

'''Mark''' is the first [[gospel]] of the [[New Testament]].

Gospel of Mark

2007-03-28T10:36:51Z

Lohengrin: New page: '''Mark''' is the first book and first gospel of the New Testament.

'''Mark''' is the first book and first [[gospel]] of the [[New Testament]].

YHWH

2007-03-28T10:18:41Z

Lohengrin: Cleanup

The Hebrew letters often done YHWH (and rendered as "The Lord") can be pronounced as [[Yahweh]].

Judges of Israel

2007-03-28T10:11:40Z

Lohengrin: New page: Othaniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, evil Abimlelech, as well as Jephthath and Samson were Judges of Israel

[[Othaniel]], [[Ehud]], [[Shamgar]], [[Deborah]], [[Gideon]], evil [[Abimlelech]], as well as [[Jephthath]] and [[Samson]] were [[Judges of Israel]]

Book of Ruth

2007-03-28T09:13:02Z

Lohengrin: done, save for Davidic ancestry

'''Ruth''' is, in secular literary terms, a pastoral romance, where the poor but good widow Ruth, and her equally-poor-and-widowed mother-in-law, [[Naomi]] triumph over all and become part of the Royal House of David. It's the best short story from antiquity.

Naomi had two sons by her husband Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion. The family had emigrated to Moab (modern [[Jordan]]). Naomi's husband, and then her sons died, without issue; she was left with two childless daughters-in-law. Naomi set off for home into the land of [[Canaan]] (this was not yet the Kingdom of Israel).

She managed to send [[Orpah]] ([[Oprah Winfry]]'s mispelled first name) back to her home, but Ruth insisted on joining Naomi. At this point, the poetic and theological majesty of the book is made: Ruth 1:15-16:

<blockquote>Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.</blockquote>

So Ruth trudged back to suburban [[Jerusalem]] with her mother-in-law, to [[Bethlehem]]. Her mother-in-law, Naomi, was recognized with some cheer, but Naomi was bitter, as a woman with no living descendants, and only a widowed daughter-in-law as a companion.

In Chapter 2, we have the [[barley]] harvest, where Naomi has warmed up to her daughter-in-law, and gives her some advice. Naomi was related to [[Boaz]], a man without a wife. When Ruth suggests she exercise her right to glean the after-pickings in the fields, Naomi encourages her, and gives practical advice on how to seduce Boaz.

Boaz is entranced by Ruth, and gives Ruth advice on how to cheat on the harvest. Boaz is also in love with how Ruth has been good to Naomi. Boaz does some ethnic things, and at the end, Ruth marries him, with Naomi occupying a priveliged space in the family.

Book of Ruth

2007-03-28T08:51:12Z

Lohengrin: to be continued; first save.

'''Ruth''' is, in secular literary terms, a pastoral romance, where the poor but good widow Ruth, and her equally-poor-and-widowed mother-in-law, Naomi triumph over all and become part of the Royal House of David. It's the best short story from antiquity.

Naomi had two sons by her husband Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion. The family had emigrated to Moab (modern [[Jordan]]). Naomi's husband, and then her sons died, without issue; she was left with two childless daughters-in-law. Naomi set off for home into the land of [[Canaan]] (this was not yet the Kingdom of Israel).

She managed to send [[Orpah]] ([[Oprah Winfry]]'s mispelled first name) back to her home, but Ruth insisted on joining Naomi. At this point, the poetic and theological majesty of the book is made: Ruth 1:15-16:

<blockquote>Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.</blockquote>

So Ruth trudged back to suburban [[Jerusalem]] with her mother-in-law, to [[Bethlehem]]. Her mother-in-law Naomi was recognized with some cheer, but Naomi was bitter, as a woman with no living descendants, and only a widowed daughter-in-law as a companion.

Malachi

2007-03-26T10:41:46Z

Lohengrin: my bad; fixed

'''Malachi''' may refer to:

*[[Malachi (Biblical book)]], the 39th and final book of the [[Old Testament]]
*[[Malachi (prophet)]], one the [[Minor prophet]]s after whom the Biblical book is named

{{Disambiguation}}

Anno Domini

2007-03-26T10:35:57Z

Lohengrin: fixed

''Anno Domini'' is [[Latin]], conventionally translated into [[English]] as "in the year of the Lord." The conventional abbreviation is '''AD'''; periods after each letter are an optional matter of style, but modern usage dislikes them.

AD is sometimes misinterpreted as being an abbreviation for "after death," referring specifically to the death of [[Jesus Christ]]. This causes the common confusion resulting from the general consensus is that Jesus died roughly AD 32.

In general, English usage follows Latin by placing the abbreviation ''before'' the year number for AD, but ''after'' the year number for BC, although there are several exceptions to the first part of this principle. Constructions such as "the fourth century AD" are widely accepted, but constructions using full month-and-day with '''AD''' do not work (one does not write "September 11, 2001, AD").

[[BC]] is an English [[initialism]] meaning "Before Christ" and always is the last element. If the context does not otherwise indicate we are in such times, one is obligated to use the form. One can use it with full explicit dates, e.g., "Julius Caesar was killed March 15, 44 BC".

Talk:Easter

2007-03-26T10:21:03Z

Lohengrin:

== The holiest day ==

I was taught that Easter ''was'' the holiest day of the Christian calendar, more important than Christmas. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:This might just be the next article to get world publicity, considering how bad it is.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Matthew

2007-03-25T15:41:08Z

Lohengrin: tweak

'''Matthew''' may refer to:

*[[Matthew (Biblical book)]], the 40th book of the [[Christian]] [[Bible]], and first book and first [[Gospel]] of the [[New Testament]]
*[[Matthew (evangelist)]] is one of the four [[Biblical evangelist]]s. 

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible character]]

{{Disambiguation}}

Talk:California

2007-03-25T05:54:16Z

Lohengrin:

Could the large number of abortions a)get cited and b) since California is the most populous state wouldn't that make sense?--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 22:37, 10 March 2007 (EST)

We got Arnie and his Democrat wife. Abortion is a good thing.

Talk:Jesse Helms

2007-03-25T05:08:12Z

Lohengrin: New page: Jesse Helms was the most evil Senator of this time. He changed from Democrat to Republican. He liked to kill people. He murdered people. He was racist, homophobic and basically homocidal.

Jesse Helms was the most evil Senator of this time. He changed from Democrat to Republican. He liked to kill people. He murdered people. He was racist, homophobic and basically homocidal.

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-03-25T04:48:26Z

Lohengrin: /* Spell-checker */

Matthew

2007-03-25T04:21:25Z

Lohengrin: Only possibly an apostle

'''Matthew''' may refer to:

*[[Matthew (Biblical book)]], the 40th book of the [[Christian]] [[Bible]], and first book and first [[Gospel]] of the [[New Testament]]
*[[Matthew (evangelist)]] is one of the four [[biblical evanglist]]s.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible character]]
{{Disambiguation}}

Talk:Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-25T04:05:58Z

Lohengrin: Fyodor Dostoevsky

== Do liberals encourage sin? ==
Are you, [[user:TerryH|TerryH]] saying that [[liberals]] routinely do, and encourage others to, be unfaithfull and steal?

--[[user:orly|orly]] 14:41 15 March 2007 (CED)
:Yes, I am.

:[[Bill Clinton]] will go down in history--however much longer our history will last--as an adulterer.

:And he has many, many supporters.<blockquote>We have willing dames enough. There cannot be that [[vulture]] in you to devour so many as would to greatness dedicate themselves, finding it so inclin'd. ''MacBeth'' IV.iii.74-44</blockquote>

:Liberal politicians always get a free pass on adultery. And theft, too--witness Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).

:Liberals now dominate [[Hollywood]]--where the actors and actresses and directors and producers are awfully busy playing "musical beds." And their ethos, such as it is, informs the content of their work product. I don't go to more than one movie a year, and haven't for years. I have fellow churchmen who don't go to the movies at all--they wish never to darken the door of a motion-picture exhibition hall, because of the trash exhibited therein. And I can't blame them. They aren't missing much.

:As to theft, liberal programs amount to organized theft. If there's one thing that [[Jesus]] never would encourage, it is theft.

:Add to it their thoroughgoing yellow-ness in matters of peace and war.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me, but please provide me a list of the times YOU have served in combat. I consider myself Liberal in many matters, but I have served this country for years. Calling someone yellow is an insult that in the good old days I would be justified in killing you for. Not that I would, because I value peace over war, but your comments reek of ad hominem tactics.
-Gasmonkey
:I don't have to stand for threats. Be advised that if you do not retract it at once, then I shall report you on the Abuse page. ''They'' might take the matter straight to the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]].

:Nor do I have to reply to the "chickenhawk" canard. [[Bill Clinton]] didn't serve in combat, either. Neither did [[Hillary Clinton|his wife]]. Neither did [[Albert Gore, Jr.|Al Gore]]. Neither did [[Michael Moore]].

:Now I don't know your particular position on the [[Iraq]] War, so I don't know whether you personally are yellow or not. (You want to declare yourself? Go right ahead, and then I'll judge what color you are.)--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I was not threatening you, merely illustrating that at one point in our mutual history calling someone "yellow" which is synonymous with "cowardly" was a grave insult that would lead to violence and possibly death. Labeling people as cowardly because they are liberal or have some liberal views is an ad hominem attack. Further, your list of democrats that did not serve in the military is most likely easily countered by a list of those that did, or of republicans that didn't.

As to my position on the Iraq war, I personally do not agree with it. However, I have spent three tours there, and I will quite possibly go back for a fourth. Now your little "yellow" comment about liberals would then mean that I am also a coward because I hold many liberal views. I would ask you not to throw around such insults until you yourself have spent time at a casualty collection point and had the opportunity to see first hand what a bullet does to a person's chest.
-Gasmonkey, SSG, United States Army

:Coward? No--not in view of your demonstrated willingness to follow orders. You're a better man that, for example, [[John Kerry]] or [[John Edwards]].

:No, where your fault lies is in not thinking the matter through--and in swallowing hook, line, and sinker the big con job that the [[Democratic Party]] and its house organs, the mainstream media, have been dishing out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I was afraid you did...

::I do feel it is sad that you so lightly put all the "[[liberals]]" in one pack, closing in on, not [[racism]] (Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions, and then making such generalizations part of society), but very close indeed. I'm not saying that I don't do the same from time to time (we are after all only humans), but at least I'm here trying to se your side of things. (And in some places getting a good laugh as well. ^__^)

::I can tell you that I do visit a movie theatre as seldom as you do, and I perhaps should tell you that I don't encourage anyone to commit crimes or be unfaithfull, and I do consider myself as liberal and [[atheism|atheistic]]. Common sense takes you there as well you know.

::--[[user:orly|orly]] 15:45 15 March 2007 (CED)

:::[[Racism]], you say? Are you, then, saying that the best liberals are born-and-bred? Your statement makes zero sense otherwise. In case you didn't know it, you don't have to be [[Caucasian]] to be conservative. Witness [[Walter E. Williams]], [[Thomas Sowell]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::And you don't have to be liberal to encourage sin. Or else why would the Bible Belt have a divorce rate almost 50% higher than the national average? That IS a sin, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fyodor Dostoevsky ==

Book V of ''The Brothers Karamazov'' does this nicely. The blind Grand Inquisitor recognizes the prisoner Jesus as the triune homoozious bit he is, and explains why he has to burn him as a heretic.

Read it.

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-03-25T04:00:12Z

Lohengrin:

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE) when referring to dates. See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.

==Spell-Checking==
One assumes you have something like the Google bar over your browser. This has a spell checker. Use it.

==Spelling==
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged.

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians|Politicians]]

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-03-25T03:59:51Z

Lohengrin: spelling

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE) when referring to dates. See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.

==Spelling==
One assumes you have something like the Google bar over your browser. This has a spell checker. Use it.

==Spelling==
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged.

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians|Politicians]]

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-03-25T03:56:49Z

Lohengrin: improved

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE) when referring to dates. See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged.

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians|Politicians]]

Acronym

2007-03-25T03:32:53Z

Lohengrin: acronym

An ''acronym'' is an [[abbreviationism]] pronounced as a real word. '''N'''orth '''A'''tlantic '''T'''reaty '''O'''rganization is routinely pronounced 'nay-toe', and spelled, as a proper noun, '''Nato''' (the other letters are not capped).

''Scuba'', '''S'''elf '''C'''ontained '''U'''nderwater '''B'''reathing '''A'''pparatus, aka "scuba" is another famous acronym.

Anno Domini

2007-03-25T03:09:35Z

Lohengrin: tweak

''Anno Domini'' is [[Latin language|Latin]], conventionally translated into [[English language|English]] as "in the year of the Lord." The conventional abbreviation is '''AD'''; periods after each letter are an optional matter of style, but modern usage dislikes them.

AD is sometimes misinterpreted as being an abbreviation for "after death," referring specifically to the death of [[Jesus Christ]]. This causes the common confusion resulting from the general consensus is that Jesus died roughly AD 32.

Convention requires that the letters be before the year, e.g., ''AD 800''. Usage of "AD" in full dates, e.g., "AD July 4, 1776" or "July 4, AD 1776" is rarely enountered, and calls attention to itself, and on these grounds alone should be eschewed. For most AD-era dates, convention allows you to omit the indication that this is not in the era Before Christ. For three-digit AD-dates, however, there there is a greater tendency to use the form. You can say "the first Council of Nicaea was convened AD 325", and forms such as "the first Council convened in the early 4th century AD" are unexceptionable.

Contrariwise, [[BC]] is an English [[abbreviationism]] meaning "Before Christ" and ALWAYS is the last element. If the context does not otherwise indicate we are in such times, one is obligated to use the form. One can use it with full explicit dates, e.g., "Julius Caesar was killed March 15, 44 BC".

Anno Domini

2007-03-25T03:09:11Z

Lohengrin: usage, for style manual; please comment

''Anno Domini'' is [[Latin language|Latin]], conventionally translated into [English language|English]] as "in the year of the Lord." The conventional abbreviation is '''AD'''; periods after each letter are an optional matter of style, but modern usage dislikes them.

AD is sometimes misinterpreted as being an abbreviation for "after death," referring specifically to the death of [[Jesus Christ]]. This causes the common confusion resulting from the general consensus is that Jesus died roughly AD 32.

Convention requires that the letters be before the year, e.g., ''AD 800''. Usage of "AD" in full dates, e.g., "AD July 4, 1776" or "July 4, AD 1776" is rarely enountered, and calls attention to itself, and on these grounds alone should be eschewed. For most AD-era dates, convention allows you to omit the indication that this is not in the era Before Christ. For three-digit AD-dates, however, there there is a greater tendency to use the form. You can say "the first Council of Nicaea was convened AD 325", and forms such as "the first Council convened in the early 4th century AD" are unexceptionable.

Contrariwise, [[BC]] is an English [[abbreviationism]] meaning "Before Christ" and ALWAYS is the last element. If the context does not otherwise indicate we are in such times, one is obligated to use the form. One can use it with full explicit dates, e.g., "Julius Caesar was killed March 15, 44 BC".

Ruth

2007-03-24T23:13:06Z

Lohengrin: disambig

'''Ruth''' may refer to:

*[[Ruth (Biblical book)]], the 8th book of the [[Old Testament]], named for the Biblical heroine it portrays, the great-grandmother of [[King David]].

{{Disambiguation}}

Judges

2007-03-24T23:08:59Z

Lohengrin: converted stub to disambig

'''Judges''' may refer to:

*The 7th book of the [[Bible]], (Hebrew: Sefer Shoftim ספר שופטים). It is part of the Hebrew Bible ([[Tanakh]]) as well as the Christian [[Old Testament]].
*The [[Judges of Israel]], tribal leaders who functioned as judges and law-givers in the period before the establishment of the monarchy, and who collectively give their name to the book.

{{Disambiguation}}

Exodus

2007-03-24T22:45:07Z

Lohengrin: disambig

'''Exodus''' may refer to:

*[[Exodus (Biblical book)]], the 2nd book of the [[Old Testament]] (as well as of the [[Pentateuch]] and [[Hexateuch]])
*The [[Exodus of Israel out of Egypt]], the actual journey from Egypt into Canaan, as described in the Biblical book.

{{Disambiguation}}

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-03-24T22:39:57Z

Lohengrin: Not "Isrealite". Restructured first paragraph.

Joshua was an early leader of the [[Exodus]]-era [[Hebrew]]s, and a political successor to [[Moses]]. He was the main military figure of the Hebrews during the conquest on [[Canaan]]. He is accounted one of the first [[Judges of Israel]]. The story of Joshua can be found in the books of [[Exodus]], [[Numbers]] and [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]], the last of which taking its name from him.

Joshua is commonly believed to have lived sometime during the late Bronze Age (rought 1200 BC), however as of yet there is little archeological or historical evidence to determine the exact dates of the events referred to in the Bible, and there is much debate in archeological circles over the historical authenticity of the bibical account.

The Biblical account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan can be summarized as follows-

He killed the entire population of [[Jericho]] and [[Ai]], the former through divine intervention in the form of the cities walls collapsing before the defenders, and the latter through trickery. He went on to defeate the combined forces of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. It was during this battle that Joshua was said to "command the sun to stand still in the sky" so that the battle could continue. Before Joshua's death, the land was divided amoung the twelve tribes of Isreal, including much of the land that remained to be conquered.

A famous quote by Joshua is 'As for me and my house I will serve the LORD.' This quote can often be seen on Christain memorabelia and merchandise.

[[Category:Old Testament]]

Joshua

2007-03-24T22:28:28Z

Lohengrin: disambig

'''Joshua''' may refer to:

*[[Joshua (Biblical book)]], the 6th book of the [[Old Testament]] as well as the 6th and final book of the [[Hexateuch]]
*[[Joshua (Biblical leader)]], an early leader of the [[Hebrew]]s, after whom the Biblical book is named

{{Disambiguation}}

Joshua

2007-03-24T22:24:45Z

Lohengrin: Joshua moved to Joshua (Biblical leader): To make name-space for Biblical book and disambig page

#REDIRECT [[Joshua (Biblical leader)]]

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-03-24T22:24:45Z

Lohengrin: Joshua moved to Joshua (Biblical leader): To make name-space for Biblical book and disambig page

Joshua was a Isrealite leader who suceeded [[Moses]] and who led the [[Israelites]] during the conquest on Canaan. The story of Joshua can be found in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) Book of Joshua, the Book of Exodus, and the Book of Numbers.

Joshua is commonly believed to have lived sometime during the late Bronze Age (rought 1200 BC), however as of yet there is little archeological or historical evidence to determine the exact dates of the events referred to in the Bible, and there is much debate in archeological circles over the historical authenticity of the bibical account.

The Biblical account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan can be summarized as follows-

He killed the entire population of [[Jericho]] and [[Ai]], the former through divine intervention in the form of the cities walls collapsing before the defenders, and the latter through trickery. He went on to defeate the combined forces of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. It was during this battle that Joshua was said to "command the sun to stand still in the sky" so that the battle could continue. Before Joshua's death, the land was divided amoung the twelve tribes of Isreal, including much of the land that remained to be conquered.

A famous quote by Joshua is 'As for me and my house I will serve the LORD.' This quote can often be seen on Christain memorabelia and merchandise.

[[Category:Old Testament]]

Malachi

2007-03-24T22:22:47Z

Lohengrin: disambig

'''Zechariah''' may refer to:

*[[Malachi (Biblical book)]], the 39th and final book of the [[Old Testament]]
*[[Malachi (prophet)]], one the [[Minor prophet]]s after whom the Biblical book is named

{{Disambiguation}}

Zechariah

2007-03-24T22:21:22Z

Lohengrin: New page: '''Zechariah''' may refer to: *Zechariah (Biblical book), the 38th book of the Old Testament *Zechariah (prophet), one the Minor prophets after whom the Biblical book is n...

'''Zechariah''' may refer to:

*[[Zechariah (Biblical book)]], the 38th book of the [[Old Testament]]
*[[Zechariah (prophet)]], one the [[Minor prophet]]s after whom the Biblical book is named

{{Disambiguation}}