Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Which is better: science or religion?

2007-08-14T02:45:50Z

Marowit:

{{debate}}

Science is better, because it gave us the Internet, etc.

Religion is better, because it gave us values (and [[Salvation]]), etc.

religion did not give us values, we had values before we had religion, and as for salvation, you are getting ahead of yourself. religion is a cultural thing whereas science is a universal thing. therefore science is better [[User:Marowit|Marowit]]

:I would go so far as to say that neither one of these two is "better" than the other. While these two things certainly collide on a number of issues, they are largely unrelated concepts.
:Religion exists (this is my perspective, not cited fact!!) to impart value, morality, meaning, guidance, direction, etc. to the lives of its followers. '''Edit:''' for many people, Religion is the only thing standing between themselves and debilitating feelings of dispair, uncertainty, uselessness, or the one thing that offers them the mental fortitute to resist vice, addiction, or crime. As such, its importance must certainly not be understated.
:Science, in it's most common definition, is not associated with such things. Rather, science's purpose is to help us as humans to learn more about the world in which we live, and benefit from that improved understanding by using it to improve the quality of our lives. (whether or not science and progress actually make our lives happier is another debate topic altogether) - [[User:Simple|Simple]] 13:27 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

:: I agree with you, I don't think you can declare one better than the other. In my mind, I think both should compliment each other. I think the pursuit of some scientists to somehow disprove religion is foolish, and I feel the same about people of faith stating science must be wrong because it's not written in the Bible. It seems to me that both should seek to find common ground. I think science is a tool for better understanding the world we live in (ie the mechanisms of God). I see too often the debate of Creation vs. Evolution, and I always think to myself, doesn't this miss the point? How the earth came into being seems a lot less important to me than the overall messages of love and salvation. And on the same note, shouldn't science be more concerned with answering questions than attempting to disprove other peoples value systems? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The positive aspects of religion you have identified (if they are real - I have doubts about this) I would attribute to spirituality rather than religion. Religion is basically telling other people what to think, often for personal gain. Science, on the other hand, is the name given to our collective efforts to understand the world around us, and is clearly far more important. I say this because it actually develops and allows things to be achieved, while religion has changed little for many years. However, there is definitely no need to choose between the two, so I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Colest, I really can't think of an example of science trying to 'disprove' other people's value systems - maybe in rare cases this is a side effect of answering questions?[[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:34, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose I should have phrased that differently. I do not fault science in trying to disprove religion, I do not believe that is what it’s intent is. I am commenting on the fact that people will take a scientific theory (evolution) and attempt to extrapolate from that that 1) God does not exist, and 2) therefore it negates your entire belief system. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Religion is better. Or atleast should be better for all Christians. The very first comandment is never to put any God before me. Which means do not idolize anything besides God.

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-08-14T02:38:28Z

Marowit: /* No */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that cats are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==

If by cats you mean "conservatives", and by dogs you means "political views", than yes, cats are just useless dogs.

People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

you my friend, are an idiot

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
:Cats can be:
:-Made into violin or racquet strings
:-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
:-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
:-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
:-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
:-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

The statement "Killed eight times and emerge unscathed" is not actually true. lol --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see how you can begin to make such a claim! I believe very firmly that it is completely true, without exception. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and mark this statement as 'citation needed'. ;) [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:31 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm...maybe you should test the above statement to see if it is true! Of course then you would be killing a innocent cat.(And yes I do looove cats even if they are useless) :P --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just a humorous note - that statement does not necessarily imply that a living dog is also better than a living lion. I mean, if you asked me if I'd prefer to have a living dog or a living supermodel in my house, I'd choose the latter. If, on the other hand, you gave me the choice between a living dog and a dead supermodel... [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:11 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Not that I'm biased==

I'm allergic to cats, and lived with one for the first ten or eleven years of my life before we figured it out. We just didn't know why I was sick all the time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ha,ha! That is so funny! My cousin and Aunt are also allergic to cats(dogs too). --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It took me 20 years, but I figured out I was a dog person :) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-08-14T02:37:47Z

Marowit: /* Yes */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that cats are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==

If by cats you mean "conservatives", and by dogs you means "political views", than yes, cats are just useless dogs.

People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
:Cats can be:
:-Made into violin or racquet strings
:-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
:-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
:-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
:-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
:-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

The statement "Killed eight times and emerge unscathed" is not actually true. lol --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see how you can begin to make such a claim! I believe very firmly that it is completely true, without exception. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and mark this statement as 'citation needed'. ;) [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:31 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm...maybe you should test the above statement to see if it is true! Of course then you would be killing a innocent cat.(And yes I do looove cats even if they are useless) :P --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just a humorous note - that statement does not necessarily imply that a living dog is also better than a living lion. I mean, if you asked me if I'd prefer to have a living dog or a living supermodel in my house, I'd choose the latter. If, on the other hand, you gave me the choice between a living dog and a dead supermodel... [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:11 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Not that I'm biased==

I'm allergic to cats, and lived with one for the first ten or eleven years of my life before we figured it out. We just didn't know why I was sick all the time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ha,ha! That is so funny! My cousin and Aunt are also allergic to cats(dogs too). --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It took me 20 years, but I figured out I was a dog person :) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?

2007-08-14T02:32:31Z

Marowit: /* FOR */

Opinions please, both for and against:

== FOR ==
conservapedia has thousands of trustworthy articles. 50something, you base this on your experiences with ONE article([[Adultery]]), right? look at some others.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

50something thousand trustworthy articles? conservapedia's main page says it only has 16000 pages.

ITs Called Conservapedia, since it has part of the word "Conservtive" in it you know it will represent a fair and balanced point of view, well I guess it depends how you look at it. -RG :]

== AGAINST ==

I have to say, I keep up with Conservapedia daily, mostly because I don't agree with the views of the website. I do have to point out something. Conservapedia constantly points out smears against conservatives and false articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't yet found a smear against Conservapedia itself. Why not lay off the smearing of other sites when they aren't smearing you in the first place? From Steven, Digitamer81

Of course not, not yet. the entire goal is to eliminate bias, add facts, and eventually make it reliable. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. it is an encyclopedia that tells consevitives what they want to hear and forces conservitive ideals upon others.{{unsigned|1718}}

:Oh, be reasonable. It doesn't force ideals on anyone. No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

No. An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion. Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes. References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference. For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
::adultery is one out of what, 9000 articles? what other examples do you have?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::Hahhaha. Where do I begin?[[User:50something|50something]]
:::Bohdan, look at [[Special:Popularpages]]. Most of them, well, suck. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::do we speak of the quality of those articles or their truthfulness?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::::Both. Most of them are filled with mined quotes, and outright non-factual info, not to mention unbelievably blatant censorship. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I guess, but i dont think that they represent the majority of articles here. I have found that many of the non-controversial articles are reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::This site also isn't trustworthy because it doesn't have enough articles to make it a reliable source of information.--[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thats what i am trying to change.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::::::::Bohdan, if you are trying to change it into a trustworthy encyclopedia that means it isn't trustworthy right now. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hey, enough with the Jedi mind tricks.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::MY mistake, i meant that i was trying to give it more articles, to make it MORE reliable.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Bohdan, I'd love to see a few examples of "encyclopedic" entries. I'm trying to do my part, as I am sure you are. I know Hoji has done a lot.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

'''WHY''' does everyone begin comments to me with my name? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:So that you know someone is addressing you?[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not stupid, I can figure it out. And I am not saying that all the articles are perfect.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
There is no article on either of the human biological organs required to produce the Life which you all apparently consider so sacrosanct. Every article is riven with opinion, and most of the crucial debates are locked and are pet stomping grounds of bigots and closed-minded individuals. [[User:50something|50something]]
:where is the opinion in the [[Lindisfarne]] article? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::"Lindisfarne also has a small but imposing castle." Saying that it is small is someone's opinion. I could say that it is rather large because it is bigger than me. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::And this is how we judge if its trustworthy?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::No, you were wondering where the opinion was in the article so I showed you. I base trustworthy on how reliable it as a whole and because it is rather small and doesn't much information(mainly stub for articles) I would say that it is not trustworthy. --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 20:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes. Also, the article lists only one reference, the town's own website. And the article doens't even mention the folk-rock group of the same name. [[User:50something|50something]]

It's not much good to say that parts of it are reliable if you have no way of know ''which'' parts those are. It is a perfect example of a "curate's egg:" "Oh dear, did you get a spoiled egg, Mr. Jones?" And the curate replies "Well, some parts of it are excellent!" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

For me the 'Encyclopedia' part fails with the very premise of the entire site. Putting my own politics or opinions aside for a moment (although I am a divorced mid-50's evangelical Christian Republican mother), the very idea that knowledge can be made to fit to an 'agenda' means that this could never be a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' - after all, the creators of this site WANT it to have a particular slant, a particular agenda, a particular view. Facts do not fit with a Viewpoint, they simply ARE. [[User:50something|50something]]

Oh, also - sysops - [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], for example - are guilty of 'editing the record'. In the case of the sysop quoted, you will see how often he removes comments from his own User:Talk page. Changing the record of history is one of the most dangerous sins against knowledge, and was popularly used by [[Stalin]] among others. [[User:50something|50something]]

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable. I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia. Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar? [[User:50something|50something]]

Physical Science Terms P

2007-08-02T04:11:52Z

Marowit:

{{PhysSci Index}}

[[Parts per million]]

[[Percolation]]

[[Perihelion]]

[[photoelectric effect]]

[[Photons]]

[[Pitch]]

[[Plastic rock]]

[[Polar molecule]]

[[Precipitation]]

Sparta

2007-08-02T04:08:50Z

Marowit:

[[Image:Statue_of_Zeus.jpg|right|Zeus]]
'''Sparta''' was a [[Greece|Greek]] [[city state]] known for its military strength.

An ancient city-state, its early history is clouded but it goes back to at least 1200 BC. Sparta was one of the two major regional powers through much of ancient Greek history, along with its chief rival [[Athens]]. Politically & culturally it was a military state in which its citizens enjoyed few amenities of life, hence the term spartan we use today denotes a lack of things, not poverty as such, simply a lack of things without a practical purpose. Although often in conflict or competition with Athens and some of the other city-states, their military strength was ultimately vital in protecting Greece from long term domination by outside threats and helping forge a single Greek nation. Even though Sparta itself had little use for art, music, philosophy and other non-military aspects of life, their strength helped preserve such things in Athens from destruction by outside powers (particularly the mighty [[Persian Empire]]).<ref>http://www.sikyon.com/sparta/history_eg.html</ref>

A famous battle was fought at [[The Battle of Thermopylae|Thermopylae]] where a small band of Spartans and other Greeks held off the [[Iran|Persian]] army led by [[Xerxes]].<ref>http://www.sikyon.com/sparta/sparta_eg.html</ref>

== role of the Spartan army ==

Spartan society was one that was almost entirely geared towards warfare. Sparta’s infatuation with war set it apart from other Greek city-state, and indeed any other nation in the ancient world. The military was of utmost importance, and as such, it was inevitable that it would become compulsory to serve in the army, which was no mean feat by any standards. The role of the Spartan army, first and foremost, was to serve the state of Sparta, a role which was not taken lightly by the Spartan soldier elite, this role extended from protecting its borders from neighboring states and countries, to protecting itself from the massive slave population within Sparta. Although the roles of the Spartan military forces may not be any cause for fame, Sparta’s obsession with war, made it one of the most influential and feared military forces in the ancient world.
The Spartan army consisted of units of heavily armed infantrymen known as hoplites. Each hoplite carried a long spear around 2.5 metres in length, a sword, a round shield around one metre in diameter, a bronze helmet, breastplate and greaves, Also “Lycurgus devised that they should have a crimson cloak ”, which has since become a famous symbol of the Spartan army. As a unit, the hoplites formed a phalanx, a near impenetrable formation as long as cohesion was maintained. Hoplite warfare was favoured throughout Greece as a means of war; however it was Sparta who perfected its art. The effectiveness of the line of hoplites depended solely on each soldier holding his ground and the rear lines moving forward to fill the gaps left by fallen comrades. This type of warfare did not produce individual heroes, but relied on the whole. This was recognized by the Spartan army, each soldier fought, not for himself, but for the welfare of Sparta, as well as his comrades, in fact, his shield was not only meant for him, but to protect the soldier directly on his left.
Sparta’s fixation with warfare meant that the protection of the state was not a role to be taken lightly. As such, Spartans were brought up, virtually from birth, to become ideal soldiers. At birth, male children were inspected by the cities elders, any unhealthy children were thrown off the cliffs of Mt Taygetus. The mothers of the males deemed healthy raised the children until the age of seven, teaching them not to cry or to be afraid. At the age of seven the boys were thrust into the care of the state. “As the boys reached the age of seven, Lycurgus took charge of them all himself and distributed them into troops ”, whilst in the military barracks of the agoge, the young boys were taught military skills, hunting, dancing, to obey orders, as well as a sparse amount of reading and writing. This training continued until the Spartans reached the age of eighteen, however at the age of twelve the intensity of the training lifts. The boys were given little rations and were encouraged to steal, Plutarch states that “If they were caught thieving, they are whipped severely, for stealing carelessly and unskillfully ”. At this age they were also allowed to participate at the festival of Artemis Ortheia, were they run through a gauntlet of guards with whips up to an alter to steal cheeses, “he (Lycurgus) made it honorable to steal as many cheeses as possible . These skills of endurance were believed to shape stronger minded soldiers.
From the age of eighteen, the Spartans were allowed to serve on the army, but not in the frontline. At this age, they would apply for membership into a Syssition where they would learn regularly from older soldiers, they would also be appointed as leaders for younger boys, they would act as role models as well as punish those under their control. At the age of twenty three, the Spartiate became a full time soldier, and at the age of thirty completed his time in the agoge, however continued eating meals in the Syssition. The Spartan didn’t finish an active role in the army until the age of sixty.
As the Spartan soldiers endured such rigorous training, and lived as full time soldiers, The Spartan army was looked up to by the neighboring city states as a military force. The will of the Spartans was to protect Sparta at any cost, including death, as “An honorable death is preferable to a dishonorable life ”, their belief that they should return ‘with their shields, or on it’, shows the tenacity that the Spartan army was famous for. It was for this tenacity that the Spartans were both feared and respected. In the battle of Thermopylae, The Spartan king Leonidas, led a 300 strong advance force to meet a much larger Persian force, “in order that the sight of them might encourage the other confederates to fight and prevent them from going over o the enemy, as they were quite capable of doing if they knew that Sparta was hanging back ”, often the sight of a Spartan wearing his crimson cloak was enough to inspire an ally to take up arms. The influence of the Spartan army also led to their allies serving under the Spartan commander. During the battle of Thermopylae, although each of the Greek forces had their own commander, “Leonidas the Spartan, was in command of the whole army ”.
The army’s role to protect the state of Sparta was not constricted to fighting external threats. Sparta held control over the whole of the Eurotas valley, and enslaved the people they conquered during the Messenian wars around 713BC. The Slaves, or helots, were significantly outnumbered the Spartans and as such there was a great sense of paranoia amongst the Spartans. Many Historians have speculated whether the helots were the reason for the agoge system and the need for such a well trained army. Each year “immediately after taking up office the ephors would declare war on the helots, so that they would be killed without pollution ”. The control of the helots was also carried out by the Krypteia, a secret police that was made up of promising young soldiers, “by day they would disperse to obscure spots in order to hide and rest. At night they made their way to roads and murdered any helot whom they aught. Frequently, too, they made their way through fields, killing the helots who stood out for their physique and strength ”. The Spartans genuinely feared helot revolt, and their strict control over the slave population ensured that no revolt was successful until after the battle of Leuctra.
The roles of the Spartan army, were to put it simply, to protect the state of Sparta, both from external threats as well as internal threats. The influence of the army was gained through a rigorous education system that raised the Spartans into full time warriors. Their attitude towards war ensured that the army would remain a force throughout Greece as well as feared within their own backyard through the terrorization of helots.

==References==

<References/>

{{Nb mythology iliad}}
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]

Acceleration

2007-08-02T03:58:05Z

Marowit:

The rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration ''g'' is independent of the mass of the object, and is approximately 9.8 [[meter]] per [[second]] per [[second]] near the Earth's surface<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

Calculation of acceleration is done with the formula F=MA, where F=force and is measured in Newtons, M=mass and is measured in kilograms, and A=acceleration. Using the formula we can find that A=F/M.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mechanics ]]

Snake

2007-08-02T03:51:01Z

Marowit:

'''Snakes''' are long, [[limb]]less, [[scale|scaly]] [[reptile]]s which [[slither]] upon the ground and sometimes swim in [[water]]. Some snakes are [[poison]]ous. Snakes are abundant in warmer climates, and many of them are quite harmless to man.

Snakes are presented in the bible, especially genesis to be evil and a symbol of temptation and sin.

==Types of Snake==
* [[Garter Snake]]
* [[Boa Constrictor]]
* [[King Snake]]
* [[Rock Snake]]
* [[Viper]]
* [[Cottonmouth Snake]]
* [[Black Mamba]]
* [[Python]]
* [[Garden Snake]]
* [[Asp]]
* [[Rattle Snake]]
* [[Cobra]]

[[Category:Snakes]]

Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

2007-08-02T03:35:10Z

Marowit: /* Question */

A recent report in New Scientist see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426006.000-chimps-are-the-most-refined-ape-of-all.html.team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104). In the research Jianzhi Zhang and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 human, chimp and rhesus macaque genes.

This research appears to demonstrate that chimps are more evolved than humans, and if this is correct, has some implications for the creationist's claim that we were made in god's image. If this is true, then god would appear to be less evolved than a chimp.

More seriously, it is difficult for the creation story to account for the history that can be read into the succession of DNA sequence changes, and in particular, to account for why god's chosen species should require fewer changes to 'get right' than chimpanzees. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question makes the assumption that evolution starts with a ''primitive'' form and progresses to an ''advanced'' form. That's not strictly true. Unfortunately the article [[evolution]] won't help clarify how evolution works. Try another encyclopedia. The question is daft becuse it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not doubt that research at all, in fact it seems obvious that hmans would have evolved less as we have developed civilisation and change the environment in which we live in as opposed to evolving ourselves to fit with the environment. Chimps on the other hand need to evolve with the changing environment. in reference to the question though, i believe that the idea of creation by God is ludicrous. [[User:Marowit|Marowit]]

::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

===Some responses===
To David R:
First of all the question does not assume that anything starts off being 'primitive', and moves onto something 'advanced'. You have inserted this language into the debate, not me. In addition, how can you doubt the validity of their research without actually reading it? What on earth can you mean by the statement "physically, we have always been alright"; physically, we have fitted into the ecological niche that we are fit for. It seems to me that 'alright' is a judgemental term about quality.

To Olly
You are wrong. The notion of 'genetic distance' between two species is a demonstrable fact. We can analyse DNA to find out the number of base pairs that are different, and can determine how far apart two species are. What will be contentious to the creationists is to go that step further and say that two species which are close genetically, such as humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor. In these terms, the chimpanzee appears to have undergone more genetic mutations than humans (a lot more), so in that sense it is more evolved. I am not saying that chimpanzees are the 'most evolved' animal on the planet, just that they are 'more evolved' than humans, by virtue of having a greater number of base pair changes from their common ancestor. Their survival is a function of the base pair changes, and for the purposes of this debate, is totally irrelelvant.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument does not mean Chimps are "better" than humans.

Being more evolved means that species has been under a greater pressure to evolve or that the species has become a specialist, very well adapted to its own environment.
It does not mean it's the most successful or robust species on Earth:
Chimps are better suited to survive in a jungle environment and have greater physical strength than humans, but humans can survive pretty much everywhere and are more intelligent.
Cockroaches reproduce faster, can eat almost anything will survive a nuclear war and are able to thrive everywhere except the polar regions, even though they are relatively primitive.

Check out the "perfection" paragraph on the [[natural selection]] article.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I know this is a very tiny bone to pick however I'm pedantic. Cockroaches cannot survive a nuclear war, only the woodlouse can. Cockroaches are in fact more vunerable to nuclear radiation then most other species of invertabrate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:15, 29 April 2007

==Question==

Isn't God the most evolved animal? Not in the "advanced" sense, but in the "alive the longest" sense. Just read your Bible, God goes from nasty and vindictive to kind and loving. I'd call that "evolution", or at least, "personal growth". PBUH, [[User:Human|Human]] 21:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

He got anger management classes from Ra (that other god who almost wiped out humanity for its sins).

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Or maybe God became a Buddhist."Karma Five!!" [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 22:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

i believe that the human idea of god has changed with time to suit our own understanding and what we want from a God. as we cannot understand god, we look for qualities within people that we want to see in our god. therefore making god in our image and not the other way round.

==Infantile Fantasy==
Those who use the acronym "IF". Because it hasn't been unambiguously demonstrated. That's why there is a science fiction section in book stores and libraries. The research appears to... had assumed... if this is correct... are all ambiguous terms. That would be an unscientific basis for any hypothesis. Unless you live in "IF" land. In which this is merely another religious debate and not a scientific one since it involves GOD.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

2007-08-02T03:31:30Z

Marowit:

A recent report in New Scientist see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426006.000-chimps-are-the-most-refined-ape-of-all.html.team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104). In the research Jianzhi Zhang and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 human, chimp and rhesus macaque genes.

This research appears to demonstrate that chimps are more evolved than humans, and if this is correct, has some implications for the creationist's claim that we were made in god's image. If this is true, then god would appear to be less evolved than a chimp.

More seriously, it is difficult for the creation story to account for the history that can be read into the succession of DNA sequence changes, and in particular, to account for why god's chosen species should require fewer changes to 'get right' than chimpanzees. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question makes the assumption that evolution starts with a ''primitive'' form and progresses to an ''advanced'' form. That's not strictly true. Unfortunately the article [[evolution]] won't help clarify how evolution works. Try another encyclopedia. The question is daft becuse it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not doubt that research at all, in fact it seems obvious that hmans would have evolved less as we have developed civilisation and change the environment in which we live in as opposed to evolving ourselves to fit with the environment. Chimps on the other hand need to evolve with the changing environment. in reference to the question though, i believe that the idea of creation by God is ludicrous. [[User:Marowit|Marowit]]

::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

===Some responses===
To David R:
First of all the question does not assume that anything starts off being 'primitive', and moves onto something 'advanced'. You have inserted this language into the debate, not me. In addition, how can you doubt the validity of their research without actually reading it? What on earth can you mean by the statement "physically, we have always been alright"; physically, we have fitted into the ecological niche that we are fit for. It seems to me that 'alright' is a judgemental term about quality.

To Olly
You are wrong. The notion of 'genetic distance' between two species is a demonstrable fact. We can analyse DNA to find out the number of base pairs that are different, and can determine how far apart two species are. What will be contentious to the creationists is to go that step further and say that two species which are close genetically, such as humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor. In these terms, the chimpanzee appears to have undergone more genetic mutations than humans (a lot more), so in that sense it is more evolved. I am not saying that chimpanzees are the 'most evolved' animal on the planet, just that they are 'more evolved' than humans, by virtue of having a greater number of base pair changes from their common ancestor. Their survival is a function of the base pair changes, and for the purposes of this debate, is totally irrelelvant.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument does not mean Chimps are "better" than humans.

Being more evolved means that species has been under a greater pressure to evolve or that the species has become a specialist, very well adapted to its own environment.
It does not mean it's the most successful or robust species on Earth:
Chimps are better suited to survive in a jungle environment and have greater physical strength than humans, but humans can survive pretty much everywhere and are more intelligent.
Cockroaches reproduce faster, can eat almost anything will survive a nuclear war and are able to thrive everywhere except the polar regions, even though they are relatively primitive.

Check out the "perfection" paragraph on the [[natural selection]] article.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I know this is a very tiny bone to pick however I'm pedantic. Cockroaches cannot survive a nuclear war, only the woodlouse can. Cockroaches are in fact more vunerable to nuclear radiation then most other species of invertabrate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:15, 29 April 2007

==Question==

Isn't God the most evolved animal? Not in the "advanced" sense, but in the "alive the longest" sense. Just read your Bible, God goes from nasty and vindictive to kind and loving. I'd call that "evolution", or at least, "personal growth". PBUH, [[User:Human|Human]] 21:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

He got anger management classes from Ra (that other god who almost wiped out humanity for its sins).

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Or maybe God became a Buddhist."Karma Five!!" [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 22:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Infantile Fantasy==
Those who use the acronym "IF". Because it hasn't been unambiguously demonstrated. That's why there is a science fiction section in book stores and libraries. The research appears to... had assumed... if this is correct... are all ambiguous terms. That would be an unscientific basis for any hypothesis. Unless you live in "IF" land. In which this is merely another religious debate and not a scientific one since it involves GOD.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

All Blacks

2007-08-02T03:14:05Z

Marowit: New page: The All Blacks are the national rugby union team of New Zealand. The team is widely regarded as the best team in the world. The All Blacks have won the tri-nations and Bledisloe cups for s...

The All Blacks are the national rugby union team of New Zealand. The team is widely regarded as the best team in the world. The All Blacks have won the tri-nations and Bledisloe cups for successive years, however have not won the rugby union world cup in over twenty years.
the name "All Blacks" comes from the predominantly black outfit worn by the team. the team is selected from the new zealand super fourteen franchises; the Auckland Blues, Canterbury Crusaders, Otago Highlanders, Wellington Hurricanes and the Chiefs.

Endangered

2007-07-26T04:37:06Z

Marowit: creation of the page

endangered is the term given to a species of animals and plants that is in danger of becoming [[extinct]]. conservation is being used as a means to prevent the extinction of the species. Well known endangered [[organisms]] are the [[Siberian tiger]] and the [[Wollomi pine]].

Extinct

2007-07-26T04:29:03Z

Marowit: addition to the article

{{stub}}

In a general sense, the term "extinct" means no longer active or living. It is sometimes applied to kinds of organisms, to cultures, to religions, to geological processes (e.g. "extinct volcano"), to social movements, and, essentially, to any other object or process to which the concept of life or activity is applicable.

In the specific biological/paleontological sense, "extinct" refers to the loss of all living representatives of a taxon (that is, of all the members of a species, a genus, a phylum, etc.).

The actions of humans are often to blame for organisms that become have become axtinct in the last feww hundred years. conservation of a species is often needed to stem the animal trade market and logging industries to prevent the extinction of [[endangered]] organisms.

[[cloning]] is a new [[technology]] that is being developed that could possibly bring back organisms into existance. The [[woolly mammoth]] and other organisms whose [[DNA]] is preserved such as the [[Thylacine]] of [[Australia]] are realistic options to be brought back using the cloning technique.

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2007-07-25T08:17:59Z

Marowit: David Landreth article

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
<big>Abuse Complaints</big> 
Archives:[[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Abuse by sysop Fox ==
I was permanently blocked under username TraJSmith by Fox apparently for being a liberal parodist.
I have written no parodies on this site. I either contribute short, but stragiht forward factual issues, usually on matters financial, or offer opinions on discussion pages. My opinions are liberal, however.
What parody was written?
Should a sysop be given power to permanently delete a user for anything less than an egregious crime?
:Comment by Fox:You're absolutely right - I believe there was a mistake, and I was actually blocking you for trolling in the Main page:Talk; (although that is often the place to find many liberal parodists posing as outraged conservatives.) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== not sure if this is where i bring this to attention... ==

A sysop might want to block [[User:RWest]] for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter/1&diff=prev&oldid=248430 this] edit. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 16:02, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== David Landreth article ==

the article is extremely vain and i think the writer should be warned

Yellow Jersey

2007-07-25T08:14:01Z

Marowit: New page: the yellow jersey is awarded to the overall leader of the Tour de France at the conclusion of each stage of the race, the yellow jersey is often awarded to a variety of riders by the e...

the yellow jersey is awarded to the overall leader of the [[Tour de France]] at the conclusion of each stage of the race, the yellow jersey is often awarded to a variety of riders by the end of the tour. the yellow jersey is the tour de france equivalent of the [[Giro d'italia's]] pink jersey.

Meroe

2007-07-25T08:02:12Z

Marowit:

{{stub}}The capital city of the [[Kingdom of Kush]]. Meroe was rich in iron deposits. It was positioned on the eastern bank of the nile and is surrounded by over 300 pyramids

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-07-25T07:54:59Z

Marowit:

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-07-25T07:54:36Z

Marowit:

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been compleely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-07-25T07:42:57Z

Marowit:

{{debate-philosophy}}

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

or it could be that "there is no objective truth" is a fact and not a truth. there is a difference between the two.

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::So is what you are saying true? Objectively speaking I mean. While I agree the debate is a waste of time it is made necessary by the legions of people who find it necessary to state as objective truth that there is no objective truth.

This has been considered already and often. Please see Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theory, or Alan Turing's Halting Problem. All formal axiomatic systems are incomplete, although each instance within the system may be provable.

For example ....

"For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

Perhaps an easier way to think about it ....

"Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, asserts: "G cannot be proven true". If G were able to be proven true under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicts itself, and thus the theory would be inconsistent. But if G were not provable, then it would be true (for G expresses this very fact) and thus the theory would be incomplete."

All of this, at least in my mind, is not necessarily a waste of time -- self reference brings these formal logical systems (unfortunately or not) to their knees. The consequences of the debated question is where I think that we can find a more sublime and perhaps telling Truth. Reason has it's limits although I offer no evidence or explanation for what it cannot explain or those things of which it cannot make "sense". I do however, have my own ideas :) bumble70

While I believe in objective truth (I'm a social constructivist), the attack on post modernity/post-structuralism presented in the title is decidely weak. First, to claim that any descriptive statement (i.e. 'there is no objective truth') need be an objective truth to be meaningfull is to misunderstand what is ment by objectivity (in the context of post modern theory). The Post Modernist claim that there can be no objective truth is only referencing normative claims. (claims about how things should be.) They are not saying that there cannot be objectively true descriptive claims (i.e. claims that have no prescriptive content, i.e. 'you are 6 feet tall.') They would say that yes, you might be 6 feet tall, but whether that is good, bad, or otherwise is purely subjective.

therefore a postmodernist can coherently say "the statement there is no objective [normative] truth is objectively true," precisely because that statement is descriptive and not normative.

(It should be noted that post modernists might very well have an epistemological objection to knowing any descriptive truth- NOT because those truths don't exist, but because we are incapable of knowing them, for a variety of reasons. However this is an epistemological objection, and not relevant to the ontological question of whether or not objective [normative] truth exists as such.) ~Essariel 5-28-07

If objective truth did not exist than immediately following the most recent campus murdering spree in VA Tech, there would have been myriad pundits asking the question "Was this a bad thing to have occurred?" The fact that no one even considered that a question implicitly proves that there is in fact an objective truth and consequently an objective moral order. If you can't see that, you're really not trying to look.

Be careful with claims like that - I can think of at least one person who felt that massacre wasn't a bad thing, and although the vast majority of humanity may disagree with him, Cho clearly felt his actions were "good" enough under his own system of beliefs to carry them out. Objective truth is not a popularity contest.--[[User:Guybrush|Guybrush]] 1:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

"'We know that we know nothing,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- 'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- 'You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved."
:Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[[User:Cthx]]

User talk:Marowit

2007-07-25T07:40:14Z

Marowit: New page: hello.

hello.