Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:AFD Spanish Inquisition

2007-03-16T14:56:11Z

Luke-Jr:

No, I don't think the article should be deleted as it's a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic, but I'd like a thoughtful discussion of whether the current content is appropriate. (Obviously, I don't think it is; I don't think graphic depictions of torture, even period woodcuts, are appropriate, and at the moment that's all this article is). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep''' The article, though a microstub should be kept until it can be fleshed out. I'd help with pictures of the devices themselves (though pictures of their use should be avoided), but I'm unable to upload.[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''Delete''' or at least correct it, as the Spanish Inquisition was not authorized by the Church. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:20, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it was, and the office of the Inquisition still exists in the Church of Rome today. It's known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition. [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] on the Vatican website. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 17:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "Church of Rome today" didn't exist in 1252. As for the Catholic Church, the Inquisition in general was authorized, and was a very good thing (and in great need of reinstatement today!), but the Spanish Inquisition was ''not'' part of it. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep and expand''': The topic just isn't fleshed out yet.--[[User:Splark|Splark]] 11:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::'''Keep''', this is a very important historical event. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Missouri

2007-03-13T22:52:33Z

Luke-Jr: /* Miscellaneous */

{{stub}}

'''Missouri''' is a Midwestern state that was admitted to the Union as a slave state on August 10, 1821. Its nickname is the "Show Me State". Its capital is Jefferson City and its largest cities are, respectively, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield.

==Gun Laws==
Minimum age 21 to purchase or own a handgun, 23 to get a concealed carry permit.

==Miscellaneous==

The term "Missouri" comes from an Algonquin word roughly translating to "river of the big canoes". <ref>http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/missouri/</ref>

==Notable Missourians==

Former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] used to live in Springfield.

Five star general [[Omar Bradley]] was from Clark.

Author Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as [[Mark Twain]], was from Hannibal.

Poet [[T.S. Eliot]] was from St. Louis.

Political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] is from Cape Girardeau.

President [[Harry Truman]] lived in Lamar and Independence.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US state]]

Missouri

2007-03-13T22:50:16Z

Luke-Jr: /* Notable Missourians */

{{stub}}

'''Missouri''' is a Midwestern state that was admitted to the Union as a slave state on August 10, 1821. Its nickname is the "Show Me State". Its capital is Jefferson City and its largest cities are, respectively, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield.

==Miscellaneous==

The term "Missouri" comes from an Algonquin word roughly translating to "river of the big canoes". <ref>http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/missouri/</ref>

==Notable Missourians==

Former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] used to live in Springfield.

Five star general [[Omar Bradley]] was from Clark.

Author Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as [[Mark Twain]], was from Hannibal.

Poet [[T.S. Eliot]] was from St. Louis.

Political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] is from Cape Girardeau.

President [[Harry Truman]] lived in Lamar and Independence.

[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] lives in Kansas City.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US state]]

Humans

2007-03-13T22:09:59Z

Luke-Jr: Redirecting to Homo Sapiens

#REDIRECT [[Homo Sapiens]]

Conservapedia:AFD Spanish Inquisition

2007-03-13T18:20:56Z

Luke-Jr:

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-03-13T17:13:28Z

Luke-Jr: /* Worth mentioning? */

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Locked ==

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

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

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

== Josephus ==

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

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

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

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-03-13T17:02:08Z

Luke-Jr: /* Worth mentioning? */

User talk:Luke-Jr

2007-03-13T16:50:22Z

Luke-Jr:

Warning: your anti-Catholic postings are too opinionated. This resource is for facts, not opinions. Please stick to the facts in the future or else your account may be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I am myself Catholic, and none of my changes are intended to contain opinions, nor are they in any way anti-Catholic. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 12:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Luke, they've created a page titled Sedevacantism [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sedevacantism&action=edit]]
if you'd like to talk about your views related to Pope John XXIII and Vatican II. But please don't renew your edits to the existing pages or they will block you.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm adding this message to you here as well as on my page. If you try to say the Jews killed Jesus again, I will make it my personal mission to have you banned for life.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Stop posting that the sun orbits the Earth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, more banned facts?
::Do you have any serious evidence stating that the sun orbits the Earth? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::[http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/GEOCENTRIC_ANSWERS.doc Sure], but most of the scientific stuff isn't stuff that the average person can understand. It's not complete proof obviously, because such things are inherently unprovable by science (as science can only work within the realm of the physical universe and cannot observe it from outside). --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 17:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I laugh at the thought that someone is trying to prove the sun moves around the earth. That had been proven wrong over and over again since 1600's or earlier! So unless your a genious, i wont beilieve just like Mountain Dew. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:It is impossible to prove either position wrong scientifically. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 17:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Sean Hannity==

If you want to write about the CONTROVERSY over the contraception issue, fine. But stop injecting your personal opinion about it into the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:My addition to the article is 100% factual, 100% objective, and referenced. Full reply on your talk page --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 12:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hat

2007-03-13T16:47:10Z

Luke-Jr:

Actually, St. Paul says that women's heads must be ''veiled''.. that is more specific than 'hat', at least. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 12:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Sean Hannity

2007-03-13T16:45:45Z

Luke-Jr: This is factual, objective, and has a reference.

Sean Hannitiy is a conservative talk show host of [[Hannity and Colmes]].

However, he has recently shown a taint of liberalism in attempt to justify the evils of [[contraception]] in public.[http://youtube.com/watch?v=f50fD5elrcg]

Sean Hannity

2007-03-13T16:34:51Z

Luke-Jr: This is 100% factual.

Sean Hannitiy is a conservative talk show host of [[Hannity and Colmes]].

However, he has recently shown a taint of liberalism in attempt to justify the evils of [[contraception]] in public.

Sean Hannity

2007-03-13T16:24:14Z

Luke-Jr:

Sean Hannitiy is a conservative talk show host of [[Hannity and Colmes]].

However, he has recently shown a taint of liberalism in attempt to justify the evils of [[contraception]] in public.

Eve

2007-03-13T16:18:30Z

Luke-Jr: ... or is this fact also banned?

Eve is the name of the first [[woman]] on Earth. The Lord made her from one of [[Adam]]'s ribs when he was asleep. She gave in to the snake's temptations to eat the forbidden fruit, and had Adam do so as well, despite that she knew full well God has forbidden it. As a punishment women were made subject to men and were forced to endure painful childbirth.

== New Eve ==

The new Eve is the [[Blessed Virgin Mary]], who by giving birth to Our Lord, gave mankind the "Fruit" Who would crush Satan's stronghold on man via original sin.

[[Category:Bible character]]

Adultery

2007-03-13T16:17:51Z

Luke-Jr: obviously vandalism

Adultery is the sin of "knowing" or "laying with" someone other than your husband or wife. The Bible forbids adultery in the [[Ten Commandments]]. The punishment for adultery, according the Bible, should be death.

Eve

2007-03-13T15:51:31Z

Luke-Jr:

Satan

2007-03-13T15:49:32Z

Luke-Jr: sometimes only bishops can exorcise demonic possession

'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", "accuser") was a member of the [[divine council]] of God referenced in the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament]]. In the Christian tradition, he rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]], where he leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s). In the Jewish tradition, Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men.

== Christian Views ==

In Christianity, Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). In the book of Genesis, Satan takes the form of a snake and tempts Eve with fruit from a tree. Satan, in the Book of Job, is used by God to test the faith of Job (who remained true to God through hardships). Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although Catholic priests (and sometimes only bishops) are able to [[exorcise]] his influence. Satan, is also called by several different names (the Devil, deceiver, Bealzebub, Beelzebul, Bruce, Lucifer, Asmodeus, Abaddon, "Old Scratch," the Crooked One, etc). The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions.
In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails.

== Jewish Views ==

In the Jewish tradition, Satan serves God as the one who accuses men of wickedness and impiety. At the direction of God Satan may be permitted to test these accusations. In this view, Satan's goal is not to lead men away from their faithfulness to God, but merely to revealing the true depths of their devotion.

Catholic

2007-03-13T15:47:42Z

Luke-Jr:

A Catholic is a person who follows [[Catholicism]]. Catholics follow the [[Pope]], who is the Bishop of Rome and traditionally lives in the [[Vatican]].

Catholicism was the only sect of Christianity from the time of Paul to the time of the Protestant Revolution. Unless you count Eastern Orthodox, Gnosticism, and hundreds of other religions.

Eve

2007-03-13T15:44:13Z

Luke-Jr: the new Eve

Eve is the name of the first [[woman]] on Earth. The Lord made her from one of [[Adam]]'s ribs when he was asleep. She told Adam to eat the apple after the snake tricked her into it. As a punishment women were made subject to men and were forced to endure painful childbirth.

== New Eve ==

The new Eve is the [[Blessed Virgin Mary]], who by giving birth to Our Lord, gave mankind the "Fruit" Who would crush Satan's stronghold on man via original sin.

[[Category:Bible character]]

Eve

2007-03-13T15:42:17Z

Luke-Jr: women are not inferior, just subject to the authority of men

Eve was the first [[woman]] on Earth. The Lord made her from one of [[Adam]]'s ribs when he was asleep. She told Adam to eat the apple after the snake tricked her into it. As a punishment women were made subject to men and were forced to endure painful childbirth.

[[Category:Bible character]]

Political neutrality

2007-03-13T15:33:25Z

Luke-Jr: typo; the sentence seems to be untrue, IIRC; someone verify?

{{stub}}
== Neutrality ==

Neutrality is maintaining a position to not take sides in a war, debate, and arguments{{fact}}. A good example of a country that publically maintains a neutral status is Switzerland.{{fact}} Switzerland helped Nazis and Communists during the second world war while refusing to help the Allies including America.

Pi

2007-03-13T15:30:32Z

Luke-Jr: hexadeci-pi

'''Pi''' is the name for the Greek letter <big><big><math>\pi</math></big></big>, which corresponds to the English letter '''p.'''

In the Bible, 1 Kings 7:23 contains the famous passage "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." This quotation predates Greek mathematics and is an example of the wisdom contained in the bible. Assuming the "sea" is perfectly circular, this would equate Pi to an exact 3. As a result, some people use this as "proof" the Bible's fallibility. However, the Bible only says that the "sea" is ''round'', not that it is ''circular''.

<big><math>\pi</math></big> is also the symbol used in mathematics for the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, and which appears in many other places.

<big><math>\pi</math></big> is an [[irrational number]]; this means that it cannot be expressed as a fraction, and (therefore) cannot be expressed exactly as a decimal no matter how many decimal places it is carried out to.

The value of <big><math>\pi</math></big> is approximately 3.14159 in decimal. This value is precise enough for almost all ordinary purposes; it can, for example, be used to calculate the circumference of the Earth with an error of only 350 feet.

In hexadecimal, <big><math>\pi</math></big> is approximately 3.243f.

For rough purposes, the fraction 22/7 (= 3.14285...) is sometimes used.

To some extent, the progress of mathematics—or at least of computation—can be gauged by the progress in the number of digits to which <big><math>\pi</math></big> has been calculated. In 1873 Abraham Shanks spent twenty years calculating <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 707 places, but unfortunately made a mistake in his calculation and only 527 of them were correct. When electronic computers were developed, <big><math>\pi</math></big> was soon calculated to tens of thousands, millions, and billions of places. As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?

Papyrys of Ahmes, dated c. 1650 B.C.E. circa 1000 years before Book of Kings, shows that ancient Egyptians had value 3 1/6 = 3.166666667, which is significantly closer to biblical value. Same goes with Babylonian value from same time <big><math>\pi</math></big> 3 1/8 = 3.125(Boyer, A History of Mathematics, 2nd Edition).

Memorizing <big><math>\pi</math></big> is a challenge that appeals to some people. Mnemonics have been devised. Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I want a drink—alcoholic, of course" gives <big><math>\pi</math></big> to seven places (which is more than enough for all ordinary purposes). Numerous other mnemonics of this kind have been devised; in 1995, Michael Keith wrote one entitled [http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/mikerav.htm Near a Raven] which simultaneously parodies [[Edgar Allen Poe]]'s poem ''The Raven,'' while encoding <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 740 places.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Pi

2007-03-13T15:29:27Z

Luke-Jr: not a circle

'''Pi''' is the name for the Greek letter <big><big><math>\pi</math></big></big>, which corresponds to the English letter '''p.'''

In the Bible, 1 Kings 7:23 contains the famous passage "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." This quotation predates Greek mathematics and is an example of the wisdom contained in the bible. Assuming the "sea" is perfectly circular, this would equate Pi to an exact 3. As a result, some people use this as "proof" the Bible's fallibility. However, the Bible only says that the "sea" is ''round'', not that it is ''circular''.

<big><math>\pi</math></big> is also the symbol used in mathematics for the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference, and which appears in many other places.

<big><math>\pi</math></big> is an [[irrational number]]; this means that it cannot be expressed as a fraction, and (therefore) cannot be expressed exactly as a decimal no matter how many decimal places it is carried out to.

The value of <big><math>\pi</math></big> is approximately 3.14159. This value is precise enough for almost all ordinary purposes; it can, for example, be used to calculate the circumference of the Earth with an error of only 350 feet.

For rough purposes, the fraction 22/7 (= 3.14285...) is sometimes used.

To some extent, the progress of mathematics—or at least of computation—can be gauged by the progress in the number of digits to which <big><math>\pi</math></big> has been calculated. In 1873 Abraham Shanks spent twenty years calculating <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 707 places, but unfortunately made a mistake in his calculation and only 527 of them were correct. When electronic computers were developed, <big><math>\pi</math></big> was soon calculated to tens of thousands, millions, and billions of places. As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?

Papyrys of Ahmes, dated c. 1650 B.C.E. circa 1000 years before Book of Kings, shows that ancient Egyptians had value 3 1/6 = 3.166666667, which is significantly closer to biblical value. Same goes with Babylonian value from same time <big><math>\pi</math></big> 3 1/8 = 3.125(Boyer, A History of Mathematics, 2nd Edition).

Memorizing <big><math>\pi</math></big> is a challenge that appeals to some people. Mnemonics have been devised. Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I want a drink—alcoholic, of course" gives <big><math>\pi</math></big> to seven places (which is more than enough for all ordinary purposes). Numerous other mnemonics of this kind have been devised; in 1995, Michael Keith wrote one entitled [http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/mikerav.htm Near a Raven] which simultaneously parodies [[Edgar Allen Poe]]'s poem ''The Raven,'' while encoding <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 740 places.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Indulgences

2007-03-13T15:25:20Z

Luke-Jr: Corrections and de-protest-antization

Indulgences, under the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, are specific recommeneded prayers or actions which are intended to help bring a person closer to perfection, dead or alive. A result of this is the lessening of the burning needed to bring that person to a perfect state, necessary to enter Heaven. A person may seek an indulgence for a loved one who has passed away or for the temporal punishment of oneself. A plenary indulgence may be obtained for the living or the dead, known or unknown. While Sacramental Confession is needed for the forgiveness of sins, indulgences bring the sinner closer to perfection in his very person, thus reducing time spent in the state known as Purgatory. An indulgence cannot be seen as replace confession, for obvious reasons.

Until the 1567 [[Council of Trent]], indulgences could be bought for specific periods of time.

[[Category:Religion]]

User talk:Dpbsmith

2007-03-13T15:15:02Z

Luke-Jr:

Comment posted on talk page for Commandments:

Seeing as you seem to be our resident Evolution Expert, I have a question. How Does evolution explain the instinct in bees to only harvest nectar from one kind of plant on any given day? According to the survival of the fittest, the bees should be going to the flowers closest to their hive so as to maximize the amount of nectar that they could gather in a day.
--[[User:CJS|CJS]] 21:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:I don't want to be "resident evolution expert" if that means I'm supposed to "prove" evolution, or have a pat answer for everything, or anything like that. And, by the way, I love to argue, but I'm a stranger here and ''trying'' to be a polite guest.

:I don't know a specific answer to your specific question.

:So I'm going to answer your question with another question: how can you be ''sure'' that going to the closest flowers is really the best survival strategy? How can you be sure that what they actually do may not be better?

:Scientists have discovered some surprising things. You might wonder why sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, persists in African populations. You'd think that according to Darwinism, the people without sickle-cell anemia would be fitter and that over time the population carrying the sickle-cell gene would be selected out. So, does the continued existence of the sickle-cell gene disprove Darwinism?

:It turns out that the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia only does so when there are two of them... and when there is only one of them, it provides protection against malaria! So, in places where there is malaria, there is selection ''for'' the sickle-cell gene. This benefits the population as a whole, because most members of the population only get one gene, so they get malaria protection without getting sickle-cell anemia. Only the unfortunate people who are homozygous for the gene get sickle-cell anemia.

:So, it may not be at all obvious what is really being selected for... in fact it may take a research study to discover it.

:So, with respect to the bees, the real scientist's question: ''how would you find out?'' What experiments could you perform to find out whether it is better for bees to go to the closest flowers than to go to the flowers they actually go to?

:(Pretty feeble, but the best I can do at short notice!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:24, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:: '''Reply:''' Evolutionists exaggerate the sickle-cell anemia example, though I don't fault Dpbsmith for repeating it. From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia — a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout your body. Under normal circumstances, your red blood cells are flexible and round, and they move easily through your blood vessels to carry oxygen to all parts of your body. In people with sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid and sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregular-shaped blood cells die prematurely, resulting in a chronic shortage of red blood cells. Plus, they can get stuck when traveling through small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to certain parts of the body. This produces pain and can lead to serious complications. There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and prevent further problems." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sickle-cell-anemia/DS00324

:: So sickle cell anemia is, overall, a harmful disease. And the disease itself does not protect against malaria, but those susceptible to the disease (e.g., have the gene) may be less vulnerable to malaria. I don't know if that's been proven but I have an open mind about it. Regardless, this does not support evolution in any way. There is no evidence that really has been "selection" for those afflicted with vulnerability to sickle cell anemia, and that suggestion seems highly unlikely. The link to evolution here remains a leap of faith. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:24, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:::I happen to think that on the topic of evolution, the scientific community ''has'' allowed itself to become somewhat dogmatic and to claim too much about the explanatory value of the theory.

:::And I also think the "science versus religion" aspect doesn't do much good for either science or religion. The Catholic Church's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo was a good thing.

:::P. S. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research whether or not a single allele of the sickle-cell anemia gene really protects against malaria. I think that's sound, but a lot of things that circulate as simple stories turn out to be a lot more complicated when you look into them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:02, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken. Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows: 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia. --Aschlafly 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Feel free to respond there. Thanks!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:Much better. Fine, in fact. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)

----

I moved our interesting debate about perpetual motion machines to its own talk page for that entry, in the hope it will enlighten and perhaps spark debate by others. I've marked that page as "Watch" now so I will be notified whenever you post to it.

Thanks. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Your explanation of [[Bell Laboraties]] is superb! I worked there in the mid-1980s and became an expert in UNIX there. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Nice image of Phillip Brooks! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)

*Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:26, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your entry on <big><math>\pi</math></big>. I improved the symbol using our LaTex capability. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 13 January 2007 (EST)

I am sickened that this discussion on evolution is going on here, not that I agree with your views on it, but there are places to debate this other than a member's talk page. I just wanted to thank you for your conflicting, yet intelligent, contributions. We need more people like you. :) [[User:David R|David R]]

:Well, thanks. But everybody on this talk page has been perfectly courteous. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:42, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to [[geometric progression]]!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

:You're welcome. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for putting your two cents in on the 'spelling issue'. You certainly make more sense than the other person I was speaking to. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken about the debates; they are available to anyone who has anything to say.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 19:33, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, the debates are for everyone. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:39, 20 January 2007 (EST)

*OK, I'll consider that an invitation. Thank you. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:48, 20 January 2007 (EST)

:'''OOPS!'''

You're right, I did mean protected -- not against. Thanks

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 13:57, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your good improvement to my additional example of Wikipedia gossip (about John Tower). Your time reference is insightful. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to the [[Chappaquiddick]] entry. I didn't realize it is a separate island! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 January 2007 (EST)

:Oddly enough, I was just about to add something to it... a quotation from a New York Times editorial. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:52, 31 January 2007 (EST)

*Whoops! I didn't realize I had the font in blue. Thanks for catching that! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 18:39, 11 February 2007 (EST)

== King James Bible ==
''I have no idea what that last edit is about. Seems completely wrong. What the heck is "REAL Douay-Rheims?" Is it a reliable source? Seems to be pushing some point of view.''
:Please don't revert corrections unless you have at least '''some''' source to back it. The ancient texts were lost at the time of the KJV; it couldn't be based on them. It is well known that the KJV borrowed from the Douay Old Testament. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herman Melville ==
Dpbsmith, thanks for your reply. I don't know what happened to my Melville comments about its shift in popularity. That's OK, the entry looks great the way it is now. Please feel free to add to the content your fascinating material about the NY Times obituaries that you have on the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:01, 3 February 2007 (EST)

== Work in progress ==

Kentish Sir Byng stood for his King, 
Bidding the crop-headed Parliament swing: 
And, pressing a troop unable to stoop 
And see the rogues flourish and honest folk droop, 
Marched them along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song. 

God for King Charles! Pym and such carles 
To the Devil that prompts `em their treasonous parles! 
Cavaliers, up! Lips from the cup, 
Hands from the pasty, nor bite take nor sup 
Till you`re--- 

CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song. 

Hampden to hell, and his obsequies` knell 
Serve Hazelrig, Fiennes, and young Harry as well! 
England, good cheer! Rupert is near! 
Kentish and loyalists, keep we not here 

CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song? 

Then, God for King Charles! Pym and his snarls 
To the Devil that pricks on such pestilent carles! 
Hold by the right, you double your might; 
So, onward to Nottingham, fresh for the fight, 

CHORUS.---March we along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song! 

''Kentish:'' the county of Kent was a Royalist stronghold.

''Sir Byng:'' appears to be Browning's invention, not a real person.

''Crop-headed:'' Oliver Cromwell and his followers were Puritans, and many of them wore their hair cut short, an unusual style at the time. See also [[Roundheads]].

''Parliament:'' Before the Civil War, the English Parliament did not play an important role in the government of England. The Civil War pitted Parliament against the King, with Parliament ultimately winning a much more powerful role. Parliament, and its supporters, the Parliamentarians, were the opponents of King Charles.

''swing:'' i.e. Byng thought that the Parliamentarians should be hanged for treason.

''Pym:'' John Pym (1584-1643), leader of the Long Parliament.

''carles:'' variant of "churl," a rude, ill-bred person

''parles:'' Words. Probably also intended to echo "Parliament."

''Lips from the cup:'' Cavaliers are often portrayed as jolly, devil-may-care types who liked their wine, women, and song, as contrasted with the Puritans, who were, well, puritanical.

''Hampden to hell:'' John Hampden, (1595—1643), a champion of Parliament.

Hazelrig:

Fiennes:

Young Harry:

Rupert: Prince Rupert, the German nephew of King Charles, who led a thousand Royalists in a cavalry battle against the Parliamentarians at the Battle of Powick Bridge.

Onward to Nottingham:

===Thanks===

On second thought you're probably right; I unblocked him.

Thanks for the heads up.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 13:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Why do you and JoshuaZ keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

:Hmmm... I thought I had seen that somewhere, but I guess you're telling me it's a mistake. The original article in Wikipedia said "It was created by a World History class of 58 homeschooled teenagers." So I guess I should say "teenager," not "middle-schooler." Sorry.

:It's not directly relevant to any debate, but it certainly affects ''my'' understanding of the site, the project, what's appropriate, and how I should interact with other users. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)

::"Teenager" would be accurate. There are not many non-teenage middle-schoolers, though they are certainly welcome also. Also, as time goes by, many of the original teenagers are quickly becoming adults.

::Somewhere else someone (Joshua, I think) speculated that the requirement that entries be clean here was motivated by the age of many users. That's certainly a consideration that sometimes is important. But the bigger reason is to keep the entries on a high level, just as a real encyclopedia would.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

::: I don't know what you mean by a high level in that regard. Britannica has articles on articles on human reproductive systems that I imagine you might consider inappropriate to have articles about and a variety of other, arguably even more "unclean" topics. It isn't clear to me what "cleanliness" has to do with high-mindedness (indeed, I would be tempted argue that if one is sufficiently high-minded everything becomes clean as they are just different parts of God's Creation). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)

== Syntax ==

No need to "pretend" thanks for the catching that mistake. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:44, 15 February 2007 (EST)

== Appreciation for work on Robert Frost ==

Nice work on improving the Robert Frost entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 17 February 2007 (EST)

== Homeschooling ==

Some good edits were caught up and lost in your recent deletions, please be more careful. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 14:50, 23 February 2007 (EST)

== IP or SYSOP? ==

We'd really like to make you a SYSOP, Dpbsmith. With more SYSOPs, we could then reopen new registrations and handle in influx of vandals more easily. You could recommend others to be SYSOP also. You could relinquish SYSOP power at any time, or simply choose not to exercise your powers.

Otherwise, I don't see how to protect your IP from blocking unless you can email it to us at webmaster@conservapedia.com, as just suggested by another SYSOP.

I hope you can become a SYSOP!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:54, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:I ''very much'' appreciate the invitation, but I decline... I enjoy writing articles. I enjoy collaborative interaction. I enjoy spirited argument between people willing to play fair, maintain some level of civility, and take the risk of having their opinions changed.

:I don't enjoy fighting vandals and don't want to do the heavy lifting. When the system isn't too slow it's almost as easy to revert an article "manually" as by clicking "rollback" which is 90% of fighting vandalism, anyway.

:(I know you don't believe it, but Wikipedia's stability rests more on the community of editors than the sysops, and Conservapedia's best shot at staying ahead of the vandals is to attract a sufficiency of ordinary editors.)

:Thanks again. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== [[Real numbers]] ==

I'm fine with your edits (I would argue that decimal representations are always infinite but this may be a nitpick). The main causes of the pain were the previous article insisting that the reals contain "infinite values" and the notion that the real numbers *exclude* anything (since if one wants to talk about them that way, one might as well say they exclude cows and deities). Regarding your other comments, I'm not sure of a general name for the procedure, however the motivation for going to the reals that a mathematician would most likely give is that one wants to be able to take limits. As for infinities, that's complicated and can be dealt with in a variety of different ways depending on what one means by infinity. Wikipedia has a few good articles on these topics. I would recommend [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_arithmetic cardinal arithmetic] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number ordinal number] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_reals extended reals] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number surreal numbers] as different examples of ways of incorporating infinity. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Hallo Dpbsmith,

you wrote:

"What was your rationale for this edit? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)"

Dpb, not many people know this, but every member of the College of Cardinals is automatically a Doctor of Divinity. Other degrees are also possible, though they would normally be granted through one of the several Pontifical Academies. But in every case, cardinals would already have an undergraduate degree that they received in the process of becoming priests. (Although, technically, a non-priest could become a cardinal; however, this has not happened since the Middle Ages, before the College of Cardinals was founded).

[[User:Hiram Whickermeister III]]

Best regards,

Whick

== Earth article unprotection ==

Thank you for your kind request. I composed a lengthy response to you but unfortunately it was lost due to Conservapedia "hiccuping" and me not saving it. I will remove the protection now. Again, thank you for your kind request. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== pH ==

Yeah, that's why I said "roughly" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:12, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Your thanks is appreciated regarding my making Conservapedia more factual in regards to the Intelligent Design article ==

Your thanks is appreciated regarding my making Conservapedia more factual in regards to the Intelligent Design article and I wanted to let you know I changed my edit again in order to make it more precise. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

==Articles For Deletion==
When posting for AFD please create an AFD page for the page in question. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Hey Smithy ==

It has been suggested to me that you are someone who knows what he/she is doing on this site. I am having trouble uploading an image file. Are you able to help? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:03, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Believe me, I have ''no'' idea what I am doing on this site!

:Image uploading is very flaky. I get error messages about two-thirds of the time. I have no idea why and haven't bothered to ask. What ''seems'' to help is changing the filename, i.e. if it doesn't work try changing the name. But maybe that's just coincidence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Thanks. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::No quite sure how to contact the webmaster... I suppose we could try leaving a note at [[User_talk:Conservapedia Webmaster]] but the fact that that page is blank isn't promising... and/or email to webmaster@conservapedia.com . [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== I trust your judgement regarding the prison delete it ==

I trust your judgement regarding the prison material so delete it. I can't investigate the material right now and block possible parody people because i am researching something for Andy. Let me know if you get into a edit war. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== I permanently banned the troll Christian Concern ==

I permanently banned the troll "Christian Concern". No need to get Andy involved. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While you revel in that block, please block another harmful user - (explicative)Saddam. It would be greatly appreciated. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:32, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==the homeschooling thing==
No, I in fact did not read the line you sent me, as I was not aware of it. The word that stuck out as making the whole insulting was "schizophrenic", and that made it sound as though Conservapedia should be treated with contempt.

But after reading your follow-ups, I don't think you intended that at all, so it is me who should be apologizing. And I do. So now, let's get our collective posteriors in gear and make it better than it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[Bible]] article improvements==
Although it needs some filling in regarding the subheadings mentioned in the talk page, that article itself was improved to the point of being original. Check it out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I've seen too many articles here that suffer from lack of info; it was like someone created an article, threw in a single sentence, pronouced it good, then left. I don't like working like that! There will be additional info and pics added before the week is out to make it look better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ark of the Covenant

2007-03-13T15:10:21Z

Luke-Jr: two arks-- Old vs New Covenant

== Old Covenant ==

The Ark of the Old Covenant was a sacred ark which the [[Ten Commandments]] and a jar of manna were kept in. It is described in detail in God's instructions on making it in Exodus 25:9-22:

"Have them make a chest of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.
Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites."

== New Covenant ==

The Ark of the New Covenant is the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, just as the Ark of the Old Covenant bore the God's Commandments, bore Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

User talk:HabamusPapem

2007-03-12T22:37:54Z

Luke-Jr:

I really like your name! LAtin is amzing if you can pronounce it well and understand it. habamus papem = We have a pope! --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, just too bad it isn't true --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 18:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Please stop with the disrespect, Luke. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! It was a headline in a German newspaper when Ratzinger was elected pope. It is not meant ironically or ideologically or in any other way, it just occured to me when I had to come up with a nick, which I always find so hard! [[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]]

Luke, I hope you understand my name now.[[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]]
:However, Ratzinger is an antipope, not a real pope. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 18:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, I respect your view, Luke, though, to be honest, I have little truck with any claim to primacy among bishops.[[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]]
:::Ratzinger is a mere priest, and a non-Catholic one at that. He has no claim to primacy, let alone pope of the Holy Catholic Church. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 18:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Luke what is your problem with Catholics? and i read that you are a Catholic! whats with the disrespect?--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:No disrespect is intended. I just wish his name were true. Something wrong with that?

In any event, welcome to Conservapedia, HabamusPapem. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:HabamusPapem

2007-03-12T22:37:42Z

Luke-Jr:

I really like your name! LAtin is amzing if you can pronounce it well and understand it. habamus papem = We have a pope! --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, just too bad it isn't true --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 18:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Please stop with the disrespect, Luke. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! It was a headline in a German newspaper when Ratzinger was elected pope. It is not meant ironically or ideologically or in any other way, it just occured to me when I had to come up with a nick, which I always find so hard! [[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]]

Luke, I hope you understand my name now.[[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]]
:However, Ratzinger is an antipope, not a real pope. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 18:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, I respect your view, Luke, though, to be honest, I have little truck with any claim to primacy among bishops.[[User:HabamusPapem|HabamusPapem]]
:::Ratzinger is a mere priest, and a non-Catholic one at that. He has no claim to primacy, let alone pope of the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke what is your problem with Catholics? and i read that you are a Catholic! whats with the disrespect?--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:No disrespect is intended. I just wish his name were true. Something wrong with that?

In any event, welcome to Conservapedia, HabamusPapem. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Presidents of the United States

2007-03-12T22:36:02Z

Luke-Jr:

The picture for Adlai E. Stevenson (October 23, 1835 – June 14, 1914) is that of Adlai Stevenson (February 5, 1900 – July 14, 1965) the former's grandson.
CP isn't allowing me to upload photographs so someone else will have to edit this.
:[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I got the A E Stevenson picture uploaded and corrected, I added, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (1974-1977) but am stymied as I cannot upload his picture.:[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What about the 1-year presidents before George Washington? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 18:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:HabamusPapem

2007-03-12T22:32:36Z

Luke-Jr:

User talk:HabamusPapem

2007-03-12T22:31:12Z

Luke-Jr:

User talk:HabamusPapem

2007-03-12T22:26:45Z

Luke-Jr:

User talk:Luke-Jr

2007-03-12T21:46:04Z

Luke-Jr:

User talk:Luke-Jr

2007-03-12T21:40:26Z

Luke-Jr:

User talk:Luke-Jr

2007-03-12T21:33:59Z

Luke-Jr:

Earth

2007-03-12T21:27:30Z

Luke-Jr: MountainDew accidentally reverted

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Earth''' is the name for the planet on which humankind lives. It is the third planet from the [[Sun]].

The Sun orbits it at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible. Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref>

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years to an accuracy of about 1%. This estimate is primarily based on faulty radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

Bible scholars have also estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by R. B. Knox, [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] (usually referred to as Archbishop Ussher) in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Interestingly, Barr did not hold to ideals of Christian inerrancy, and criticized Christian evangelicals who claimed the Bible was errorless.

==References==
<references/>

Earth

2007-03-12T21:23:23Z

Luke-Jr:

Bible translations

2007-03-12T21:06:01Z

Luke-Jr:

The major translations of the Bible into English are:

*[[Douay-Rheims]]
*[[King James Version]] (also known as the [[Authorised Version]])
*[[New International Version]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[New American Bible]]
*[[New Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Good News Bible]]
[[Category:Bible]]

King James Bible

2007-03-12T21:05:18Z

Luke-Jr: this is true for the original KJV, at least according to http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

The King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the Bible was the culmination of 11 years of work by about 80 English scholars, authorized by King James I of England. The result was a poetic masterpiece that profoundly influenced the English-speaking world ever since. It was not the first English translation ([[William Tyndale]] had previously translated the Bible into English, and much of the Authorised Version was taken from Tyndale's version) or the most accurate (modern translations benefit from better sources). Some mistakes in the translation of the King James Bible exist in very important passages. But the King James Version of the Bible was the most majestic and it has inspired English literature from [[Herman Melville]] to [[Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]] to [[William Shakespeare]] (claimed by some to have been one of the translators) to the [[Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.]]

For example, many cite Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech without acknowledging its source in the translation of Isaiah 66:6:

"I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

The King James Version of the Bible was based on Greek translations of the Latin Vulgate and used the [[Douai Old Testament]] as a reference. The King James Version is freely and fully available for searching online.<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/208/</ref>

The King James Version used italics to indicate words that had no exact equivalent in the original text, but had been supplied by the translators for various reasons, usually to make the text read properly in English. A modern reader is used to seeing italics used for emphasis; their use in the King James Version creates a strange impression, and sometimes even an unintended comic effect:
*And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled ''him''. (1 Kings 1:27)
Many modern editions of the King James Version omit the italicization.

----

'''References:''' <references/>
[[Category:Bible]]

Talk:God

2007-03-12T20:06:21Z

Luke-Jr: /* Neutrality */

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Christianity

2007-03-12T19:26:47Z

Luke-Jr:

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mother Teresa

2007-03-12T18:57:05Z

Luke-Jr: liberal comments were removed, my criticism no longer applies

Talk:Mother Teresa

2007-03-12T18:50:38Z

Luke-Jr:

Pro-birth control, eh? more liberalism infects the wiki claiming to be conservative...

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-12T18:13:38Z

Luke-Jr:

== No ==
Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Luke-Jr/Documentation on the Conciliar sect

2007-03-12T17:51:27Z

Luke-Jr: more info incl Pope Gregory XVII

I am creating this page to prove the factual nature of my corrections to Catholicism-related articles.

''not complete yet''

== Syllabus of Errors condemnations ==
The Syllabus of Errors is a document issued by the Holy See under Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1864 condemning a number of heresies.

== On Freedom of Religion ==
=== Papal encyclical Mirari Vos ===
We come now to another cause, alas! all too fruitful of the deplorable ills which today afflict the Church. We mean indifferentism, or that widespread and dangerous opinion sown by the perfidy of the wicked, according to which it is possible, by the profession of some sort of faith, to procure the soul’s salvation, provided that one’s morals conform to the norms of justice and probity. From this poisoned source of indifferentism springs that false and absurd maxim, better termed the insanity (deliramentum), that liberty of conscience must be obtained and guaranteed for everyone. This is the most contagious of errors, which prepares the way for that absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions which, for the ruin of church and State, is spreading everywhere and which certain men, through an excess of impudence, do not fear to put forward as advantageous to religion. Ah, ‘what more disastrous death for souls than the liberty of error,’ said St Augustine.
=== Pope Pius VII in his Letter to the Bishop of Troves ===
Not only does it permit the liberty of cults and of conscience, to cite the very terms of the article, but it promises support and protection to this liberty and, moreover, to the ministers of what are termed the cults....

This law does more man establish liberty for all the cults without distinction; it mingles truth with error and places heretical sects and even Judaism on equal terms with the holy and immaculate Bride of Christ outside which there can be no salvation. In addition to this, in promising favor and support to heretical sects and their ministers it is not simply their persons but their errors which are favored and tolerated. This is implicitly the disastrous and ever to be deplored heresy which St. Augustine describes in these terms: 'It claims that all heretics are on the right path and speak the truth. This is so monstrous an absurdity that I cannot believe that any sect could really profess it'
=== Pope Pius XII in his address to Catholic lawyers, Ci Riesce ===
It must be clearly affirmed that no human authority, no State, no Community of States, of whatever religious character, can give a positive mandate or a positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good... Whatever does not respond to truth and the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action.
=== Syllabus of Errors condemnations ===
*15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
*16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.
*17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
*18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

=== Vatican II: Dignitatis Humanae ===
Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligations of seeking the truth and adhering to it.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or written word.

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.

This right of the human person in religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.

== On Papal Authority ==
A cult known as the SSPX promotes papal recognition of the Conciliar antipopes, but denies their authority and treats Vatican II as both heretical and as a valid Catholic council.

However, the Syllabus of Errors also condemns this position:
=== Syllabus of Errors condemnations ===
*23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

== On Education ==
=== Syllabus of Errors condemnations ===
*48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. -- Ibid.

== On Seperation of Church and State ==
=== Syllabus of Errors condemnations ===
*55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
*78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
*80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

== On Salvation ==
=== Catholic Dogma ===
=== Vatican II: Decree on Ecumenism ===
*The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.

== On Administation of the Sacraments to Heretics ==
=== Current (1917) Catholic Code of Canon Law ===
*It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.
=== Conciliar (1983) Code of Canon Law ===
*If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided they demonstrate the Catholic Faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

== Pope Gregory XVII ==
During the conclave following the death of Pope Pius XII, the Communists, Jews, and Freemasons completed their work to usurp the Vatican.

Cardinal Siri was elected to be the new pope and took the name Gregory XVII. This is confirmed by white smoke, declassified US FBI documents[http://www.novusordowatch.org/story081004.htm], and various other alleged accounts.
Upon threat from Church enemies before he was able to close the conclave, Pope Gregory XVII "resigned". However, according to Canon Law, a resignation under threat makes the resignation ''invalid''. Thus, Pope Gregory XVII remained pope, at least for a time. After forcing him to "resign", the conclave then proceeded to finally "elect" Roncalli a few days later. Since there was already a pope, Roncalli became merely an antipope. He took the name John XXIII, which had been used by another antipope in the past. Over the years since, Siri has made hints[http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri.htm] and allegedly admitted that he was the true pope[http://www.vaticaninexile.com/Traditionalists/Siri/Khoat.html].

== External References ==
* [http://www.cmri.org/02-doctrinal-errors-v2.html "The Doctrinal Errors of the Second Vatican Council" by Bp. Mark Pivarunas
* [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep12mdi.htm "Eclipse of the Church: 1958 and Beyond" by Mario Derksen
* [http://www.novusordowatch.org/siri.htm Aggregated Information about the 1958 Conclave and Cardinal Siri]
* [http://www.thepopeinred.com/ "The Pope in Red"] -- Site dedicated to information about Pope Gregory XVII

User talk:Luke-Jr/Documentation on the Conciliar sect

2007-03-12T17:05:31Z

Luke-Jr: quotations from papal encyclicals and V2 documents

User talk:Luke-Jr/Documentation on the Conciliar sect

2007-03-12T16:25:40Z

Luke-Jr: reorganize for better contrast

User talk:Luke-Jr

2007-03-12T16:20:42Z

Luke-Jr:

User talk:Luke-Jr/Documentation on the Conciliar sect

2007-03-12T16:10:48Z

Luke-Jr: condemnations from the Syllabus of Errors

User talk:Luke-Jr/Documentation on the Conciliar sect

2007-03-12T15:51:54Z

Luke-Jr:

I am creating this page to prove the factual nature of my corrections to Catholicism-related articles.

''to be filled in shortly with documentation/evidence''

User talk:JoshuaZ

2007-03-12T15:41:11Z

Luke-Jr:

I find that it's fun working on a Wiki-based encyclopedia that's at such an early stage that it's still easy to make changes and additions, confident that they are actually improvements. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Any Idea why you can't see the references at the bottom of the examples of bias page? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:20, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Good job on the [[Creationism]] page. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Why do you and Dpbsmith keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:22, 14 February 2007 (EST)

A: Actually conservapedia was not started to "have a wiki that Christian homeschooled students could edit without them being exposed to anything their parents didn't want them exposed to." It was started to have an encyclopedic website (it actually didn't start as a wiki) that did not have the liberal bias of wikipedia. B: The Users of Conservapedia are not limited to the students of A Schlafly, and most of the students are highschoolers. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

: There may been some miscommunication here then. For example, [[Conservapedia:About]] mentions it starting as "as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students" and my impression was that part of the reason for the third Conservapedia commandment was due to the presence of such students. It is possible that I have been misinformed about their general age. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:47, 14 February 2007 (EST)

::It was my mistake. The original article in Wikipedia used the word "teenagers." I'm not sure how I got the notion that it was middle-school age, rather than high school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

== "woefully inaccurate" ==

If you think certain articles are "woefully inaccurate on Conservapedia" by all means improve them. We do not want to scare people from editing this site as Wikipedia does. Please just try to keep your edits neutral... if you want to debate or discuss something then post it in the pages "Talk" page or make a debate topic. thanks - [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:37, 20 February 2007 (EST)

==[[Real numbers]]==
Despite my snarky edit comment, I'd welcome your giving this a look. I'm trying to make it more understandable to an audience of non-college-math-majors without I hope saying anything terribly inaccurate.

Is there any name for the logical and historical ''progression'' by which you start with positive integers, add zero out of a desire to solve the equation n + x = n, add the negative numbers out of desire to close the um, set, field, whazzit under subtraction, add the fractions out of a desire to close it with respect to division, add the irrationals and transcendentals out of a desire to close it with respect to (what?) (to duplicate the cube?) (to get a one-to-one correspondence with the points on a line?), add the imaginaries and complex numbers out of a desire to have solutions for all polynomials?

And where, exactly, do the infinities fit in _in mathematics?_ I love how IEEE-784 floating-point arithmetic handles them; it has +INF and -INF which do what I expect, and NaN (Not a Number) which also up where I expect it... 1/0 = +INF, but 0/0 = NaN, not INF. INF and -INF participate happily in further operations. INF + 42 yields INF, and so forth. INF + INF yields INF. However, INF - INF, or INF + (-INF) yield NaN. There must be something like this in mathematics, but they weren't teaching it when I was learning it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:10, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==[[Talk:Homosexuality]]==
See my own remarks on the sentence containing the phrase "extremely clear." (As you can see, I personally would have settled for dropping the word "extremely.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== CreationWiki and quotes and Theory of Evolution article ==

Thanks for your concern, however, I did not first read the quotes from CreationWiki. So there are no copyright issues. However, I did find the extensive list of CreationWiki quotes on the fossil record useful to Conservapedians so I did include a appropriate link to that material. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

::I put sources. Two of my original sources were not easily availiable (lots of websites with the same quote and a defunct website) so I used the CreationWiki as a source since the publication info was extensive so readers can easily find the quotes original sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

== Re: Additional commentary on the Theory of Evolution talk page ==

Two commnents:

1. I believe I did respond adequately previously.

2. I have some time sensitive matters I have to attend so further commentary may not becoming soon should I change my mind regarding this matter.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:49, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

::I read the additional commentary to the talk page and I believe I can respond to your comments quickly. 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:::I was hoping to respond to your criticism quickly but unfortunately I have to go. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative

== Thanks for the support ==

I was about to send a message myself, but saw that you had beaten me to it.
--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 09:24, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Somehow however, I have the feeling that we will not accomplish much here...--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 03:33, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== YEC article ==

I saw your [[Young Earth Creationism]] (YEC) article. You created a section in the article for scientists criticisms of the YEC position but you failed to create material in the article which gave scientists arguments for a young earth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

==Blocked==
It seems [[User:Conservative]] unilaterallty blocked you for 3 months(!), and without even the courtesy of a warning or an opportunity to address whatever he found objectionable. His doing so strikes me as a conflict of interest since you two were apparently debating that article's direction. Also, there is absolutely no infraction worthy of a block, not to mention one for 3 months, on your part that I can find. Since it's so clearly an abuse of his admin privileges I'm confident the management here, particularly [[User:Aschlafly]], won't stand for this sort of abuse of power. I hope this incident isn't indicative of how simple content disputes will be handled here and I look forward to soon seeing your sensible contributions and comments here again. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== RE: citation ==

You wrote: In regard to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Theory_of_Evolution&curid=3327&diff=17398&oldid=17394], that amounts to changing the citation which is problematic in the extreme, especially if you have not read the original. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY: Reread the CreationWiki citation. Plus I have read another internet source which cites the same quote.
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== My CreationWiki material where CreationWiki provides quotes ==

The [[CreationWiki]] quotes I used do cite their sources which can be checked by clicking their respective CreationWiki links to their associated sources. I see no real issue here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Creationism ==

Sorry I have failed to address this issue so far. I am opting to retreat with my tail between my legs. I may return later. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 04:59, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Bonobos ==

Thanks for helping out with the Bonobos article. I didn't realize that some of the words mignt be too explicit. I had hoped that I used them in a clinical sense. The same words are used at the National Review and NARTH sites.

== Albert Einstein ==

Oh I didn't realize that. Thank you. The person replaced information you removed without providing references. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 16:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:How do you unblock users? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Conservative ==

If you're not conservative "by most definitions of the word", then you're not conservative at all. There are no other definitions. Oh, and why don't you tell us ''why'' you think that those articles that you listed on your page are "woefully inaccurate"? Are they inaccurate because they don't agree with your worldview? Get over it! [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 23:03, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:BTW, labelling creationists and Christians in general as "fascists" and accusing them of "the destruction of core values of the open society—the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions ... to challenge authority ... to accept that there are other views, different ways of being, taht are morally and socially acceptable." (Chris Hedges, ''American Fascists—The Christian Right and the War on America'') doesn't do your side any credit, JoshuaZ. It's quite obvious just from reading their site and books by them or just by talking to them that this is NOT their goal. It's not as if evolutionists are training kids to think for themselves and draw independent conclusions by indoctrinating them with evolution and saying that creation is absolutely for-sure wrong! Not to mention the part about challenging authority; the Bible ''encourages'' submission to authority. This is an embarrassment to you and the rest of the liberal community (although there are millions of others). [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:47, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Responding on S's page. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Ann Coulter certainly is not an embarrassment to us. As for Michael Savage, I really don't know where he stands. He seems to be anti-liberal sometimes, but then later he praises theistic evolution, so really I think he's like John Kerry: wishy-washy. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Block times ==
This user may come back in year changed for the better, if not he will be infinitely blocked. This was for a pattern not just vandalism. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Re: Theistic evolution article ==

I made some comments on the theistic evolution article which I hope you found were reasonable. And no, I did not take the creationist side in this matter. I think I made both sides of the creo/evo issue unhappy but I did what I thought was necessary to insure a quality article was created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Help ==

You look like someone who knows what he is doing. I seek your advice on uploading a picture file. I do not seem able to do it. Do you know what might be the problem? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Not really. I suggest you talk to Dpbsmith. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: I've gotten a few errors uploading pics on this wiki. Sometimes it works sometimes you get an error. The last time I got an error I tried it again this time checking the box that says ignore all warnings. It worked after that but it could be a coincidence. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 19:59, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== re: your TE draft ==

Please see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theistic_Evolution/draft [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== TO: Josh, re: theistic evolution article ==

I don't have the time to read a lot of articles on the topic of "Theistic Evolution". However, I did briefly scan some articles and they did appear to be written by credible sources (for example, one article PHD after the authors name).

Please don't think I think these articles are necessarily good. I just want to create a starting point.

Please take a look at these articles:

Multiple source article with many quotes w/ sources: [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990]

Footnoted article: [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html]

ASA article Written by a PHD: [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm]

5 footnotes in article: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp]

I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Put the Pope material back in. Andy can take it out of the draft if he wants ==

Put the Pope material back in. Andy can take it out of the draft if he wants. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== question ==

I know that you are a Admin at Wikipedia and much more knowledgeable about where everything is at Wikipedia. Where does Wikipedia state that they want material written in a non-argumentative encyclopedic tone? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
: You will likely find what you are looking for at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone Fariness of tone subjection of Neutral point of view] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:: Mtur pointed you to the right place I think although other sections of the neutrality policy other than the Fairness of Tone section may be relevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Howdy! ==
Hehe thanks, I actually knew that but it was far away in my mind at the time :). I'm at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GofG] by the way. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Homosexual Agenda article ==

JoshuaZ, you need to take a look at the article on the [[homosexual agenda]]. I tried to make it unbiased, but it got reverted back & protected. Will you back me up in saying that where it's not outright offensive, it's at least biased?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholic Church ==
''whether you like it or not, the vast majority of catholics accept V2 and the current pope''
: Such people are not Catholic, no matter how much they claim to be. Fact is, V2 is heretical, and B16 is a heretic. Both are condemned by the Catholic Church. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)