Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-08T12:52:17Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Suggested Changes */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no direct way to test wether or not the earth is moving, it all comes down to interpreting indirect evidence. There is more than one valid interpretation of that evidence. I have tried to discuss the scientific evidence here before (Above) and given links my views. My varguments and links were dismissed as rubbish without any counter arguments being put forward. I don't plan repeat the whole dissussion but I would appreciated it if the links could be included 1) to give people the opportunity to read further and assess the evidence for themselves 2) To make people aware of the views of people like myself. Thankyou [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It says in Gensis that god created the earth, the light and the plants before he created the sun. The plants therefor had all the light they needed, despite the fact that there was no sun at that point, and the earht cannot have been moving / orbiting. The sun was created in day four.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding why Geocentricsm was subsequently sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

: Points 1, 2, and 4 are contained in the 3rd paragraph in the article. Yes, the frame is a matter of choice, and the article says so.
: Point 3 contradicts those points. If geocentrism is somehow more correct, then it is not just a philosophical choice. If Katz says that new cosmological evidence shows that the frame is not a matter of choice, then that would be worth considering. He does not.
: As for Point 5, there is another article on [[Galileo]] addressing the matter, and I suggest checking that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:: There are now no links to Galileo. Should we add "[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view." or somethink short like that containing links to these important men in history of this theory. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No. The article is on the Geocentric theory. There is a separate article on the Heliocentric view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-08T12:49:59Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Suggested Changes */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no direct way to test wether or not the earth is moving, it all comes down to interpreting indirect evidence. There is more than one valid interpretation of that evidence. I have tried to discuss the scientific evidence here before (Above) and given links my views. My varguments and links were dismissed as rubbish without any counter arguments being put forward. I don't plan repeat the whole dissussion but I would appreciated it if the links could be included 1) to give people the opportunity to read further and assess the evidence for themselves 2) To make people aware of the views of people like myself. Thankyou [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding why Geocentricsm was subsequently sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

: Points 1, 2, and 4 are contained in the 3rd paragraph in the article. Yes, the frame is a matter of choice, and the article says so.
: Point 3 contradicts those points. If geocentrism is somehow more correct, then it is not just a philosophical choice. If Katz says that new cosmological evidence shows that the frame is not a matter of choice, then that would be worth considering. He does not.
: As for Point 5, there is another article on [[Galileo]] addressing the matter, and I suggest checking that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:: There are now no links to Galileo. Should we add "[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view." or somethink short like that containing links to these important men in history of this theory. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No. The article is on the Geocentric theory. There is a separate article on the Heliocentric view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-07T16:11:12Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
:* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.
:::I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on [[Talk:Geocentric theory]] before you make such judgements. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is '''risible'''" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*:OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icewedge".[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T18:01:30Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Suggested Changes */

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T18:01:12Z

Mmeelliissssaa: Suggested changes

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-06T17:36:02Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RSchlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
* I second that. [[User:RSchlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-06T17:22:54Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RShlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
* I second that. [[User:RShlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-06T17:22:12Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RShlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
* I second that. [[User:RShlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.
*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-06T17:21:44Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4|4]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
* Please investigate [[User:RShlafly]]'s edits to [[Geocentric Theory]]. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. [[User:OfficerDibble]]
* I second that. [[User:RShlafly]] hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.
*{{user|YouGuysSuck}}, replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Commodore Morgan}}, replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked infinitely Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Muschifresser}}, user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Swordofdestiny}} using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Blocked by ed poor Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Boris Johnson, MP}} obscenity [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|The Black Angel of Death}} [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Czolgolz}} - Karajou says he lied about sources. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Zugstein] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:User made a mistake Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Tennis Sweatshirt}} I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]] 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Pokeisthemon}} mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Cool. My apologies to Poke. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|JoshuaZ}} Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from [[Noah]] article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
: Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

===Dealt with===
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked.
*{{user|Pussyfooter}} check out edits to [[Pudding]] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*{{user|JeffersonDarcy}} He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for 1 week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Auld Nick}} User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*:- Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles ''is'' traditional Scottish dress. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*#You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Alfa Papa}} causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a sock of Icewedge. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::'''Blocked''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Staple]] -- vandalism and other questionable content. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
** Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
***He had a swastika on his userpage[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
****The [[:Category:Liberal Users]] he created as a subcat of [[:Category:Communists]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Users]; he & I were the only [[:Category:Conservative Users]] in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Staple&diff=prev&oldid=132099] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
** Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[user:MontyZuma]], for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T17:14:52Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Suggested Changes */

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-06T17:14:39Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Suggested Changes */

Earth

2007-05-06T17:07:36Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Position of the Earth added link to Geocentric theory */

{{Solarsystem}}
[[Image:Artw 17.jpg|right|thumb|View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew traveling toward the moon. This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the Antarctica south polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the south polar ice cap. Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible. The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of Africa is the Malagasy Republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the northeast.]]

The '''Earth''' is mankind's home. Everyone who ever lived was born on the Earth.

People disagree about when and how the Earth was created. The three most popular ideas are:
#That God created the Earth several hundred generations ago, as recounted in [[Genesis]]. By adding years and other time indications in the [[Old Testament]] chronologies, one can calculate the age of the Earth as approximately 6,000 years (see [[Date of Creation]] and [[Young Earth Creationism]]).
#That God created the Earth billions of years ago (see [[Old Earth Creationism]]).
#That the Earth came into existence billions of years ago, but entirely through natural processes and without any intervention by God

Clashes between adherents of these ideas have gone on since time immemorial (see [[origins debate]]).

==Physical Description==

Within the [[solar system]], Earth is the third planet from the Sun. It is approximately 8,000 miles (13,000 km) in diameter, which means that its equatorial circumference (measured around the equator) is 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometers), and the polar circumference is slightly less at 24,809 miles (40,008 km).[http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm] The reason its metric circumference is so close to the "round number" of 40,000 is that the [[kilometer]] was defined (by the French) as 1/10,000th the distance from the equator to the [[North Pole]].

Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water", as the larger part of it—about 70%—is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth's surface.

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

== Young Earth Creationist view ==

===Formation and Age===

Followers in Young Earth creationism have a different set of beliefs about the Earth. The Bible states in Genesis that the entire earth was formed in six days. Young Earth creationists believe, as Biblical chronology suggests, that the Earth was formed in 4004 B.C. Mainstream scientific journals discriminate against this point of view for "lack of evidence", despite large amounts of Biblical evidence backing this theory.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp 1</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp 2</ref><ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400 3</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage 4</ref>

In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

===Shape of the Earth===

Some Young Earth Creationists and Biblical literalists also dispute the shape of the earth, saying that according to the Bible, the earth is flat rather than spherical (presumably square, given that it is described as having "four corners" (Revelations 7:1)). However, no credible organization has ever expressed support for this theory.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm</ref> Some Biblical literalists also dispute the idea that the earth rotates around the sun.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

In Revelations 7:1 it is stated:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth..." (Revelations 7:1)

A sphere has no corners. The four corners are also mentioned in Isaiah 11:12. This is often accepted to be a figure of speech.

It is also stated:

"Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:35)

AND

"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" (Daniel 4:10-11)

AND

"Behold, [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelations 1:7)

AND

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." (Matthew 4:8)

Apologist [[JP Holding]]'s take on this is that this may have been a vision. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#globe</ref>

===Position of the Earth===
In the view of the Bible the Earth is fixed, and the sun revolves around it. This can be found in several passages:

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

See Also: [[Geocentric theory]]

==Christianity and the Earth==

===Christian Literalism===

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

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Secular scientists, however, reject this reasoning using the anthropic principle<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref>.

===Christian Non-Literalism===

Many mainstream Christian denominations believe the story of Genesis is not meant to be read literally, and believe that the age of the Earth is on the order of millions or billions of years, not thousands of years. <ref>http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/2000n/evolution_and_religion.htm</ref>

===Scientific Uniformitarianism===

Uniformitarian scientists believe that the earth is beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> They also refute that the Earth is only 6,000 years old by quoting older human societies dated by their dating method as older than that.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

== Evolutionary view ==

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. The extreme majority of scientists conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Planets]]

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:23:19Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Consequences of the results typo correction*/

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment attempted to measure the motion of the earth through the aether and failed to do so. This unexpected failure threw physics into chaos, and lead to the [[Theory of relativity]].

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light behaved like a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (consisting of photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.
Thus the idea was that absolute movement existed.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for the speed of the light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The speed of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was somehow stationery relative to the aether at all times.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity (See [[Theory of relativity]]) became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected, years later experimental evidence was provided to support the theory of Relativity.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand. This interpretation makes the Earth "special" compared to other celestial objects, supporting the view that Humanity (and the Earth) is the pinnacle of creation (and thus central).

[[category:physics]]

Michelson-Morley experiment

2007-05-05T09:22:42Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* Consequences of the results, re-phrasing + adding a sentance */

2007-05-04T16:59:54Z

Mmeelliissssaa: Created Article, will do more work on it tomorow

== Introduction ==

The Michelson-Morley experiment was an important physics experiment performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley.

== Historical Background ==

The experiment was performed in the days when technology had just become sufficiently advanced to accurately measure the speed of light. At that time it was known that light was a wave. Scientists believed that light waves (later to be known as photons) traveled through a medium referred to as the aether (Sometimes spelt ether). The aether was believed to be fixed in space and so was regarded as an absolute frame of reference, relative to which the velocity of any object could (in theory), be measured. The concept of the eather was in some ways similar to the modern concept of "space-time" though some differences exist.

Scientists at the time believed that if they could accurately measure the relative velocity between the earth and light waves, they would get different results for light waves moving in different directions. They believed this would happen because the earth was constantly moving, and the aether was fixed. They believed that by examining the results they could measure the relative velocity between the earth and the aether, and hence determine the absolute velocity of the earth through space. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to do that.

== Results of the Experiment ==

The experiment gave unexpected results. The velocity of light was found to be the same regardless of the direction the light was traveling in. At first it was assumed that the result was due to poor equipment or some other anomaly, but further work ruled that possibility out.

== Consequences of the results ==

Scientists then faced the dilemma. They believed the earth was moving through space, but the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments indicated that the earth was stationery relative to the aether.

A number of theories were proposed to explain the paradox, including the idea that the aether might in some way be "dragged along" by the earth. In the end the theory of special relativity became the accepted explanation, and the concept of the aether was completely rejected.

A small number of people feel that the scientific community took a wrong turn when they rejected the concept of the aether. They argue that [[Geocentric theory]] is an alternative explanation of the result. If the earth is in-fact stationary relative to the aether then the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is easy to understand.

Geocentric theory

2007-05-02T13:03:03Z

Mmeelliissssaa: Undo revision 131779 by Special:Contributions/RSchlafly (User talk:RSchlafly)

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until about 1690, as it had better agreement with observation than any alternative. Ptolemy's model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism had convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in [[covariance|covariant]] equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations.

A small number of people still believe the geocentric theory to be correct. Their beliefs are based on a literal interpretation of certain bible passages and perceived anomalies in the scientific theoretical framework.

== Evidence cited for Geocentric Theory ==

The Michelson-Morley experiment performed in 1887 was an attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space. They failed, and all similar experiments since have also failed. Some interpret this as evidence that the Earth is stationary; however scientists rejected this conclusion and choose instead to dismiss the idea of absolute motion and the ether concept. The theory of relativity states that there is no absolute motion and attempts to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by postulating that space and time are distorted to make the Earth '''appear''' stationary.

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

Those who believe in geocentric theory believe that the theory of relativity is wrong and that the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

== External Links ==

Links to website supporting and promoting the Geocentric Theory:

[http://www.geocentricity.com/ Geocentricity]

[http://www.fixedearth.com/ FixedEarth]

[http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Catholic Truths]

[http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Catholic Apologetics International]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-05-02T13:00:59Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-04-27T17:10:00Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-04-27T17:08:38Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Geocentric theory

2007-04-27T16:57:35Z

Mmeelliissssaa: General Improvments

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until about 1690, as it had better agreement with observation than any alternative. Ptolemy's model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism had convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in [[covariance|covariant]] equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations.

A small number of people still believe the geocentric theory to be correct. Their beliefs are based on a literal interpretation of certain bible passages and perceived anomalies in the scientific theoretical framework.

== Evidence cited for Geocentric Theory ==

The Michelson-Morley experiment performed in 1887 was an attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space. They failed, and all similar experiments since have also failed. Some interpret this as evidence that the Earth is stationary; however scientists rejected this conclusion and choose instead to dismiss the idea of absolute motion and the ether concept. The theory of relativity states that there is no absolute motion and attempts to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by postulating that space and time are distorted to make the Earth '''appear''' stationary.

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==

Those who believe in geocentric theory believe that the theory of relativity is wrong and that the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe.

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

== External Links ==

Links to website supporting and promoting the Geocentric Theory:

[http://www.geocentricity.com/ Geocentricity]

[http://www.fixedearth.com/ FixedEarth]

[http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Catholic Truths]

[http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Catholic Apologetics International]

Geocentric theory

2007-04-27T16:41:00Z

Mmeelliissssaa: restoring previously deleted material, RSchlafly has not justefied his edit on the talk page

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with Earth-centered coordinates. It was extremely popular from ancient times until about 1690, as it had better agreement with observation than any alternative. Ptolemy's model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism had convinced everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in [[covariance|covariant]] equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations.

There is however scientific and biblical evidence that the geocentric view of the solar system is correct.

The Michelson-Morley experiment performed in 1887 was an attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space. They failed, and all similar experiments since have also failed. This indicates that the Earth is stationary; however scientists rejected this conclusion and choose instead to dismiss the idea of absolute motion and the ether concept. The theory of relativity states that there is no absolute motion and attempts to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by postulating that space and time are distorted to make the Earth '''appear''' stationary.

Geocentrists believe that the theory of relativity is wrong and that there is a much more logical explanation; that the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe. This idea is much simpler and is well supported by biblical evidence:

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)

Secular science states that the Earth is not special. Scientists believe that there are many millions of planets and that life may have "evolved" on many of them. Geocenterists believe the Earth is unique because God created humans (The pinnacle of creation) here. Geocentrists therefore believe that it is logical that the Earth is the center of the Universe and that all other objects revolve around the Earth.

Geocentrists are not the only people believe who Relativity is deeply flawed, more and more scientists are now realising that the maths of Relativity just doesn't add up. More information is avalible here:

[http://www.thefinaltheory.com The Final Theory]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-04-27T16:39:08Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-04-25T16:38:07Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-04-25T16:19:07Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

2007-04-20T15:51:18Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-04-20T15:50:41Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Omniscience

2007-04-18T17:10:24Z

Mmeelliissssaa: re-wording

'''Omniscience''' is [[God]]'s ability to know everything there is to know.

Some have questioned whether omniscience is compatibile with [[free will]]; specifically, [[Calvinist]]s have argued that God knows whether a person will be saved before he is born.

However, knowing what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not mean that (s)he does not have free will. It is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it.

Sonata form

2007-04-18T17:08:35Z

Mmeelliissssaa: re-wording to improve the article

The '''Sonata form''', also known as '''sonata-allegro form''', is a musical form typically used in the first movement of classical works. It is derived from the "binary form" of the [[Baroque]] and [[Rococo]] eras of music, and gained prominence in the works of [[Franz Joseph Haydn]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]].

The word [[sonata]] is also used to refer to a stand-alone instrumental work usually in three movements, when first movement is in the sonata form.

A work in sonata form can be divided into three sections: the exposition, development, and recapitulation.

==Outline of form==

===Introduction===

Many works in sonata form are preceded by a slow introduction usually excluded from the exposition repeat. The introduction is often used to increase the dramatic weight of a movement, as in Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 13 ("Pathetique"), or Haydn's "Drumroll" Symphony No. 103.

===Exposition===

The exposition begins with the introduction of the first subject in the tonic key. After some transition material, the second subject is introduced, usually in the dominant or relative major key (in the case of a sonata in a minor key); however, this is not always the case, a notable exception being Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 53 ("Waldstein"). The second subject tends to be more lyrical than the first subject. A small codetta brings the exposition to a close with an authentic cadence in the key of the second subject.

===Development===

The development often begins in the same key as the end of the exposition, but modulates through many different keys until the recapitulation. In this section, the themes laid out in the exposition are modified through key changes, breaking down parts of keys and motifs, variations in rhythm and harmony, and other ways.

The end of the development is the retransition, in which the original key of the sonata is increasingly stressed as the recapitulation is approached.

===Recapitulation===

This section echoes the exposition, except that the second subject is now played in the tonic key, providing a sense of balance to the work.

===Coda===

Composers will often add a coda to the finale of a work in Sonata-allegro form. The coda varies in length, with notably lengthly codas including the finale of the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 57 ("Appassionata"), and the first and fourth movements of his Fifth Symphony.

[[Category:Music]]

Talk:Islam

2007-04-18T16:59:19Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! */

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a seperate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalised Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definatly be putting accross our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christainity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

Talk:Islam

2007-04-18T16:58:10Z

Mmeelliissssaa: /* We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! */

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a seperate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalised Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definatly be putting accross our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

Talk:Islam

2007-04-18T16:57:48Z

Mmeelliissssaa:

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a seperate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalised Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definatly be putting accross our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradic Christianity must be considered false. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa