Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-14T20:39:22Z

Robertlilly: /* Statistical Analysis */

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-14T20:35:40Z

Robertlilly:

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

2008-11-06T14:10:24Z

Robertlilly:

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Are you serious? Suharto killed close to 20,000 people in East Timor alone, not counting all those who died of starvation and disease (around 84,000) due to his invasion.

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ever heard of Francisco Franco, Andy? He was the definition of conservative. religious, in favor of the old style of government. Strongly backed by the Church. sure i know you all like to pretend fascists aren't right wing, but compared to the nazis or mussolini, Franco had no socialist background nor beliefs. and he killed tens of thousands of people after he'd consolidated power, not to mention trhose exterminated behind fascist lines during the civil war. ever heard of Frederico Lorca? how about Guernica?

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'''Response to Ed Poor's comments in order''': I express my anger over ''these'' violations because some editors ''seem'' to be ''defending''(!) Pinochet. '''US Support''': So what? It wasn't the first time the CIA meddled in another country causing chaos. Salvador Allende was a '''democratically elected''' leader, but since he was guilty of the indefensible crime of being a Socialist, the Nixon administration supported a military coup. (If I remember right, Colin Powell once referred to this act as a bad moment in our history). '''Transitioned to Democracy''': Almost two decades later.... '''Communists''': Much of my ancestry fled from Russia to come to the United States, so rest assured, I most certainly am angry about the human rights violations that happened (and are still happening...) there. Why than haven't I mentioned it? Because nobody here has defended Stalin... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 08:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

2008-11-06T14:01:50Z

Robertlilly:

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Are you serious? Suharto killed close to 20,000 people in East Timor alone, not counting all those who died of starvation and disease (around 84,000) due to his invasion.

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ever heard of Francisco Franco, Andy? He was the definition of conservative. religious, in favor of the old style of government. Strongly backed by the Church.
sure i know you all like to pretend fascists aren't right wing, but compared to the nazis or mussolini, Franco had no socialist background nor beliefs. and he killed tens of thousands of people after he'd consolidated power, not to mention trhose exterminated behind fascist lines during the civil war. ever heard of Frederico Lorca? how about Guernica?

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'''Response to Ed Poor's comments in order''': I express my anger over ''these'' violations because some editors ''seem'' to be ''defending''(!) Pinochet. '''US Support''': So what? It wasn't the first time the CIA meddled in another country causing chaos. Salvador Allende was a '''democratically elected''' leader, but since he was guilty of the indefensible crime of being a Socialist, the Nixon administration supported a military coup. (If I remember right, Colin Powell once referred to this act as a bad moment in our history). '''Transitioned to Democracy''': Almost two decades later.... '''Communists''': Much of my ancestry fled from Russia to come to the United States, so rest assured, I most certainly am angry about the human rights violations that happened (and are still happening...) there. Why than haven't I mentioned it? Because nobody here has defended Stalin... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 08:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Date of creation

2008-10-28T00:47:49Z

Robertlilly:

The Date of Creation has been debated for many years, and there are various different calculations.
== Notation ==
Any year that purports to date from creation as an [[epoch]] is labeled '''AM''', for '''Anno Mundi''', which is [[Latin]] for "In the Year of the World."

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from [[Adam]] to [[Abraham]], listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… 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>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]].<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 1ff.</ref> Ussher calculated the date of Creation by the following means:
*He accepted the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 562 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 891</ref>
*He then assumed that Evil-Merodach began to reign in that year.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 892</ref>
*King [[Jehoiachin]] received a pension from Evil-Merodach beginning in this year, and that he was taken captive 37 years before then, or in 599 BC.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Kings|chap=25|verses=27-30}}</ref> (The final [[Fall of Jerusalem]] occurred eleven years later; hence Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC, not 586 BC as most secular archaeologists assume.)
*From that anchor point, Ussher worked backward through the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]]. See I and II Kings.
*He worked backward further to set the dates-of-reign of King [[Solomon]], and calculated the [[Exodus of Israel]] at 480 years earlier than the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]], which was in Solomon's fourth year.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}</ref> This fell in 1012 BC, and so Ussher fixed the Exodus at 1491 BC.
*Based on his interpretation of {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17}}, Ussher then fixed the date of the entry of [[Abraham]] into [[Canaan]]. This was in 1921 BC.
*Ussher here made a key assumption that is in great dispute. We read that Abraham was 75 years old when he embarked into Canaan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=12|verses=4}}</ref> We also read that [[Terah]] was 70 years old when he "begat" Abraham, [[Nahor]] (the younger), and [[Haran]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=26}}</ref> Ussher's assumption, which added another sixty years to the reckoning of Creation, was this: that Abraham did not embark on his own ''until after Terah had died'' at the age of 205.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=32}}</ref> This would mean that Terah was actually 130 years old, not 70, when Abraham was born--and presumably that Nahor the Younger or Haran was born when Terah was 70. Ussher's sole warrant for this assumption is that the Bible describes Abraham's departure after it describes Terah's "death." But Terah's "death" might be spiritual rather than physical, in that Terah had originally intended to take all his family out of [[Ur]] of the [[Chaldees]] and into Canaan, ''but forgot his purpose'' and grew too accustomed to worldly enticements in the country of Haran. If that is the case, then Abraham might have departed when Terah was still alive--which is what the inventors of the present Hebrew calendar assumed.

*Ussher then backtracked the pedigree of Abraham to [[Arphaxad]], born to [[Shem]] two years after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11}}</ref> He therefore concluded that the Great Flood happened in 2349 BC.
*Finally, Ussher backtracked the genealogy of Shem to Adam.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref> He further concluded that Creation must have occurred during the Autumnal [[Equinox]], which in fact is the favorite start of many of the world's [[Calendar|calendars]], ancient and modern. He ''also'' assumed that the ancient Hebrews ''did not'' attempt to synchronize their [[month]]s with the [[moon]] until ''after'' their exile into [[Babylonia]]. He thus calculated the date of creation at October 23, 4004 BC according to the [[Julian calendar]].

James Ussher's calculation was the best-sourced calculation in all of Christendom at the time. Ussher also spoke with authority, and from a position of authority. For those reasons, his dates for various Biblical events appeared in the margins of [[King James Version|King James]] and other Bibles for centuries, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when publishers abandoned this practice. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date.<ref>Cited in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/141 Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?], ''Creation'' 25(3):36–40, June 2003.</ref>

Another way to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

Such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. The date used by Eastern Orthodox Christianity is often 1 September, 5509 BC. This was the date used as the beginning point for their calendars. Traditionalist Catholics often use 5199 BC. Judaic tradition reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

== Geological dating ==

If [[logical fallacy|fallacious reasoning]] is allowed—specifically, making a central (and implausible) assumption about the past to prove timing in the past—then it is possible to claim an older creation as follows:

* assume that radiometric decay rates have remained constant and are unaffected by environmental changes.<ref>This assumption is known to be false. Tests of [[radiometric dating]] methods have often shown that they do not agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of [[radiometric dating]] methods not agreeing with each other.</ref>
* use [[radiometric dating]] to estimate an age for the crust of the [[Earth]].<ref>Mostly [[atheistic]] scientists arrive at an estimated age of the [[Earth]] of 4.5 [[billion]] (4.5 * 109) years using the above approach. See [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS, ''Geologic Time: Age of the Earth.''] Accessed April 18, 2007. According to the [[Big Bang theory]], the [[universe]] began even earlier, about 13.7 billion years ago. [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html, ''Age of the Universe'']</ref>

==Old Earth Creationism==
[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] don't attempt to calculate a date of creation as they reject the biblical account being literal in favour of the age of the earth calculated by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists.

== See also ==
* [[Creation week]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Biblical creation account]]

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]