Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

University of Texas

2007-08-29T15:55:38Z

Reagan1985:

The University of Texas is a university located in [[Texas]]'s capital of [[Austin]]. It believes in the [[liberal]] concept of education.

==External Links==
*[http://www.utexas.edu Official Website]

[[category:universities]]

Atom

2007-08-29T15:52:03Z

Reagan1985: is there a three revert rule on conservapeida, or is that a liberal wiki tactic? Look at the evolution page Theory =/= fact. DO YOUR RESEARCH

:''This page is over '''atoms'''. Atoms are theory, '''not a fact'''. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the [[intelligent matter]] theory''.

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is the smallest unit of chemical element that still retains the element's properties. The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton]]s, electrically neutral [[neutron]]s and negatively charged [[electron]]s. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained in close proximity in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels.
Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles, though neither are capable of being seen.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".
===Atomic Number===

Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Abstinence education

2007-08-29T15:50:36Z

Reagan1985:

'''Abstinence education''' encourages unmarried teens to refrain from [[premarital sex]], for reasons of emotional and physical health. I would describe the negative rammifications of increased sexual risks taken by those who go through abstience education (4x more likely to try anal, 6x more likely to try oral without any safe sex practices) but apparently describing sex acts in a encyclopedic manner is banned. Please read the usatoday link below.<ref> "Abstinence Programs Show Promise in Reducing Sexual Activity and Pregnancy Among Teens," an article printed by Family Research Council, states, an abstinence program for girls in the Washington D.C. area called, [[Best Friends]], reported only one out of 400 girls become pregnant since the program began (1). "[[Elayne Bennett]], director, says that between 20 and 70 pregnancies are common for the same sized group of fifth to ninth grade girls in the District of Columbia" (1). Upon adopting an abstinence-only curriculum by Teen-Aid, Inc., entitled Sexuality, Commitment, and Family, at San Marcos Junior High in San Marcos, California only 20 girls became pregnant in two years compared to 147 girls the year before (1). Nathan Hale Middle School in a Chicago suburb had a number of already pregnant girls at which time they adopted an abstinence program. Many parents were skeptical until the school graduated three pregnancy-free classes in a row (2). [http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/hdm/00-02-08.htm] </ref>
<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm</ref>
==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Education]]

Force Play

2007-08-29T15:39:33Z

Reagan1985:

'''Force Play''': A play in which a runner loses his right to occupy a base when the current batter becomes a runner. Also, this applies to baseball.

== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]

== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]

== References ==

*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.

[[Category:Baseball]]

Atom

2007-08-29T15:37:38Z

Reagan1985: removing censorship, please research before deleting, scientific theories are NOT fact

Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-08-29T15:36:15Z

Reagan1985:

{{Essay}}

:''This page is involves '''[[crying]]'''. Please narrate this to yourself outloud in a whining, crying tone. Please also include the line "it's not fair!" in a whiny, liebral tone whenever something exceedinly juvinelle is stated.

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal]] behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

# Liberals frequently deny the existence of practices or rules, even though the liberals defend the practice or rule. For example, liberals who deny that partial-birth abortion existed, even though they defended the practice. Why deny the existence of something that one defends? Liberals also deny that classroom prayer is prohibited, even though they defend the prohibition. Apparently liberals think their denial can deflect attention away from the indefensible.
# Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself. The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them.
# Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right.
# Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism.
# Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists or deists in their youth can find [[faith]] as they grow older. Examples include [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]], but liberals deny this.
# Liberals deny that their totalitarian positions, such supporting [[gun control]] or banning [[homeschooling]], were instrumental to [[Adolf Hitler]]'s power.
# Liberals seem to think nearly everyone else agrees with them, and even seem shocked and offended when they encounter someone who does not. In the United States, conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio, yet most liberals do not recognize that. Ask a liberal, for example, what percentage of people accept the [[Deluge]] as recounted in the Bible and the liberal's answer can be off by a factor of ten.
# Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected. That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints. Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.
# Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives. Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]. Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.
# Name-calling, particularly as a [[Parthian shot]], is overused by liberals. In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know."
# Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???
# A surprising absence of reliance on logic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority. In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.
# An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of [[Wikipedia]] co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position ''after'' his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
# A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the [[rules]], which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].
# A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the [[rule]] against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits. In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.
# Strident objections to the point in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to ''quantifying'' it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
# Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
# There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.
# Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage".

Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.

Marie and Pierre Curie

2007-08-29T15:32:43Z

Reagan1985:

:''This page is discusses '''atoms'''. Atoms are theory, '''not a fact'''. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the [[intelligent matter]] theory''.

'''Marie Curie''' was a French-Polish physicist and chemist who was a pioneer in the field of radiation and [[radioactivity]]. Also, she was the first person to win Nobel Prizes in two different fields, physics (1903) and chemistry (1911). Her husband, Pierre Curie, also studied radioactivity. In addition to that he also was a pioneer in the fields of [[crystallography]], [[magnetism]] and [[piezoelectricity]].

Marie Curie discovered two elements, previously unknown, both radioactive. One of them she named [[Polonium]] in honor of her native [[Poland]], the other, [[Radium]].

The ''[[Curie]],'' a unit of radioactivity, is named in her honour, as is the chemical element [[Curium]].

==External links==

*[http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mariecurie/p/marie_curie.htm short biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Curie, Marie and Pierre}}
[[Category:Chemists]]
[[Category:Physicists]]