Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Theistic evolution

2009-04-22T21:48:40Z

RLSOchem: The deleted bullet point is a specific tenet of deism, not theism and so is inadequate for this article.

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>. This should not be overly surprising, as a similar argument was used by Kepler and Galileo in defense of the heliocentric solar system. The general idea is that science provides a fine framework for observing, describing, quantifying and manipulating naturalistic behavior but is silent on issues such as morality and metaphysics. It is one tool for truth which must be accompanied by others (such as theology) for a full, rich world-view. The various established scientific inaccuracies of the Bible illustrate that it was never meant as a descriptive account of the naturalistic world. Scientific inaccuracy does not render the Bible incorrect in a larger moral sense, as valuable lessons may be gathered from the poetic verses of Genesis.

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible; this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Theistic evolution

2009-04-22T21:47:45Z

RLSOchem: Slight change of tone for the beginning section; a quick edit

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>. This should not be overly surprising, as a similar argument was used by Kepler and Galileo in defense of the heliocentric solar system. The general idea is that science provides a fine framework for observing, describing, quantifying and manipulating naturalistic behavior but is silent on issues such as morality and metaphysics. It is one tool for truth which must be accompanied by others (such as theology) for a full, rich world-view. The various established scientific inaccuracies of the Bible illustrate that it was never meant as a descriptive account of the naturalistic world. Scientific inaccuracy does not render the Bible incorrect in a larger moral sense, as valuable lessons may be gathered from the poetic verses of Genesis.

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible; this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer in the creation of life by scientific means.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Theistic evolution

2009-04-22T21:41:10Z

RLSOchem: /* Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design */

{{rewrite|It is confusing; despite my adding some definitions, it still fails to address whether "evolution" means "[[unguided evolution]]"}}
'''Theistic evolution''', one form of [[Old Earth Creationism]], has been defined in more than one way:
*Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creation") is the view that [[evolution]] occurred, but was planned and guided by [[God]]. <ref> [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/creation_evolution.html Reconciling Creation and Science], by an evangelical Protestant Christian identified only as India (her first name) </ref>
*The belief that God planned and created the universe in such a way that life would come into being without any further supernatural intervention

Sometimes it is not a specific theory of how life originally came into being, or how new species of life arose, but is merely:
*the belief that [[creationism]] can be compatible with the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-guided.htm#top2 "another old-earth view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve." </ref>

In most forms it asserts that life evolved from a common ancestor created by God, who then steered evolution indirectly as a process of creation, and later gave souls to the first humans to raise them above the animals. Proponents of theistic evolution often emphasize the overall message of Genesis and assert that the details of the story are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</ref>

Theistic evolutionists reject [[special creation]] of nature and its inhabitants and mankind as declared in Genesis chapters one and two and agree that humans and apes shared a common primatical ancestor. The position has come under attack from a variety of sources - Young Earth Creationists raise all of their standard objections to evolution as well as various theological and exegetical problems. Meanwhile, various agnostics and [[atheists]] have accused proponents of theistic evolution of not going far enough or of tacking on various ideas for their own emotional comfort and not for any evidence-based reasoning.

In October 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] officially declared that evolution and Catholicism are not incompatible; this remains the official standpoint of the Catholic Church <ref>Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) Catholic Libraryv[http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm]</ref>.

[[William Jennings Bryan]] wrote that "Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while [[atheism]] removes his religion.”

==Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design==

Although theistic evolution and [[intelligent design]] (ID) are superficially similar, ID design proponents have made clear that the two are not the same thing. [[William Dembski]] has gone so far as to say that, "as far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism."<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>

The primary difference between the two is the perceived role of [[proof]]. While most theistic evolutionists are content to accept God on faith alone, intelligent design proponents seek to prove the necessary existence of a designer. The mainstream view of science as naturalistic inquiry renders this quite impossible as metaphysics are clearly not reducible to empirically testable results.

==Theistic evolution and Progressive Creationism ==
Theistic evolution is not the same as [[Progressive Creationism]], as the latter rejects evolution and posits a series of distinct creation events.

==Theistic evolution and Gap Theory ==
Theistic evolution is clearly distinct from [[Gap theory]], which robustly rejects any concept of evolutionary thought.

== Criticisms of Theistic Evolution ==

Theistic evolution has been critized from a larger variety of directions, including Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnostic]]s. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] and some [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] generally consider Theistic Evolution to be [[heretical]] or at best, contrary to Biblical teachings. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref>. However, many Young Earth Creationists agree that correct knowledge of how God created humanity and such is not a necessary condition for salvation.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html</ref><ref name="Gish"> "belief in the historicity of Genesis is not essential to our salvation." Duane Gish ''Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?'' http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp</ref> A notable proponent of theistic evolution is biologist [[Ken Miller]].<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html</ref>
Proponents of theistic evolution have been accused of subtly undermining science piece by piece.<ref>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/ed-brayton-speaks.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://www.asa3.org American Scientific Affiliation], the largest organization of scientists who are Christians and who believe evolution to be true.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Christianity and science

2009-04-22T21:37:01Z

RLSOchem: The statement that evolution is blanketly false is a value judgement at odds with virtually every practicing scientists. It belongs not in a general science and religion article.

[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|175px|In his essay ''Of [[Atheism]]'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
A notable fact in relation to '''Christianity and science''' is that the [[Scientific revolution|birth of modern science]] occurred in the geographic area of [[Christianity|Christianized]] [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref> Christians awed by the grandeur of [[God]]'s creative work have long striven to understand His creativity through [[Science|scientific]] study.

[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution.
In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,<ref name="Origins">Williams, Alex,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ The biblical origins of science], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(2):49–52, August 2004.</ref> only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref name="Origins" />
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref> He believes that the [[Enlightenment]] was a ploy by "militant atheists" to claim credit for the rise of science<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>.

Indeed, some of the most notable and revolutionary scientists were Christians. [[Nicolaus Copernicus]], who first proposed the heliocentric model of the universe, was an officer of the church. [[Rene Descartes]], who played an integral role in the development of physics, also set about to prove the existence of God in his "Discourse on Methods." [[Gregor Mendel]], who laid the foundations for genetics, was a monk. Although Descartes and the heliocentrists later ran afoul of the Church, the Christian genesis of his and other scientists' work cannot be ignored.

Dr. Charles Thaxton similarly states that modern science developed in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe because of the Juedo-Christian beliefs of scientists.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>

Today, the prevalence of belief in God among American scientists is much lower than it is among the American public. <ref>[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html]</ref><ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576]</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
==See Also==
*[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:History of Science]]

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:57:06Z

RLSOchem: /* Password */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:Hello JamesY,

I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.

As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion. I also apologize for the odd display of this text ... I seem to have missed something while editing.

Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

::I am a worthless troll. Please ignore, sorry. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:50, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I am a bit confused by this statement ... was there a misunderstanding that resulted in deletion of my comments?

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:56:32Z

RLSOchem: /* Password */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:Hello JamesY,
I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion. I also apologize for the odd display of this text ... I seem to have missed something while editing.
Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

::I am a worthless troll. Please ignore, sorry. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:50, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I am a bit confused by this statement ... was there a misunderstanding that resulted in deletion of my comments?

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:56:07Z

RLSOchem: /* Response */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:Hello JamesY,
I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion. I also apologize for the odd display of this text ... I seem to have missed something while editing.
Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

::I am a worthless troll. Please ignore, sorry. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:50, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I am a bit confused by this statement ... was there a misunderstanding that resulted in deletion of my comments?

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:55:49Z

RLSOchem: /* Response */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Response ==
:Hello JamesY,
I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion. I also apologize for the odd display of this text ... I seem to have missed something while editing.
Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

:I am a worthless troll. Please ignore, sorry. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:50, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::I am a bit confused by this statement ... was there a misunderstanding that resulted in deletion of my comments?

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:55:31Z

RLSOchem: /* Response */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Response ==
Hello JamesY,
I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion. I also apologize for the odd display of this text ... I seem to have missed something while editing.
Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

:I am a worthless troll. Please ignore, sorry. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:50, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::I am a bit confused by this statement ... was there a misunderstanding that resulted in deletion of my comments?

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:51:57Z

RLSOchem: /* Response */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Response ==
Hello JamesY,
I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion. I also apologize for the odd display of this text ... I seem to have missed something while editing.

Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

:I am a worthless troll. Please ignore, sorry. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:50, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:49:23Z

RLSOchem: /* Password */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Response ==
Hello JamesY,

I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion.

Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem

User talk:RLSOchem

2009-04-22T14:48:31Z

RLSOchem: /* Password */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:40, 22 April 2009 (EDT)}}

== Password ==
Hi, I have recently been appointed the chief bureaucrat of Conservapedia. I have seen that your edits are liberal crap and I ask you to stop. I need your password, which will only be shared between me and other site owners, to block your account if you continue to make factually incorrect edits so I do not have to block your IP range to this website so other people can contribute. If you stop vandalizing I will not block you. Please reply to this message ASAP. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 10:16, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Hello JamesY,
I must say, I rather resent the deletion of my comments, which are well substantiated within the scientific literature and elsewhere. If you could please explain the partisan nature of what you have summarily deleted I would greatly appreciate it as I see no inherent "liberal" bias in them. In fact, I am quite moderate in my political take and have few leanings one way of the other. It was my understanding that the "talk" pages were designed for intellectual conversation and queries, which was my intent. My search for reconciliation between religion and science has been quite a journey, as I started every bit as resentful of evolution as many here are. Fortunately, I was allowed tutelage under some of the greatest evolutionary theists alive today (Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, Ken Miller, biochemist at Brown University, author and expert witness in the 2005 Dover Trial and Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard University) and have come to see that science and Christianity need not be in conflict. My intent in the "talk" section was to explore this idea in a civil discussion, though it appears that is "liberal crap" and "prohibited". As a scientist, I can see little benefit in the continued misunderstanding of science or religion since this inevitably leads to conflict.
As for my password, I am afraid I cannot acquiesce. This is not out of spite, but rather the fact that I use the same password for a variety of sites (bank accounts ect.) and so it would be most unwise for me to dole it out. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain some of your above statements a bit more clearly; I did put a bit of time into contributing to what I believe to be a worthwhile discussion.

Thank you and God Bless
RLSOchem