Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Red state

2007-03-15T21:51:07Z

RonaldReagan:

A '''red state''' is a state whose voters are generally [[conservative]] and who cast votes for [[George W. Bush]] in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Red states are noted for a commitment to conservative Christian morality in voting, a rejection of [[abortion]] and gay rights, and wanting to pay low taxes. Red states are generally found in the [[south]] and [[midwest]] [[United States]].

They are known as "red states" because, during elections, major news networks color them red when it is confirmed that they have voted for a [[Republican]] president.

[[Category:Politics]]

{{stub}}

Feminism

2007-03-15T21:47:59Z

RonaldReagan:

Feminism is the philosophy that [[women]] deserve to have rights equal to those of men. Most feminist writing today concerns issues like [[abortion]], [[domestic violence]], [[rape]], [[maternity leave]], [[gay rights|lesbian rights]], [[child custody]], and [[comparable worth]].

Feminism is necessary because of sexist attitudes to women throughout history, as demonstrated in these quotes from the [[Bible]]: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." -- I Tim. 2:9-15.

Not all women are feminists. Several examples are [[Phyllis Schlafly]], who opposed the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] in the [[1960s]], and [[Dr. Laura Schlessinger]], who says that her purpose is “to deal in truths and values about life, love, death, responsibilities, character, religion and general, everyday behavior.”. <ref><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33866">WorldNetDaily</a></ref>

Equal Rights Amendment

2007-03-14T23:41:05Z

RonaldReagan: rv POV

The Equal Rights Amendment was an amendment to the [[United States Constitution | United States Constitution]] passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification within a deadline of seven years. The amendment, which was untitled, stated:

SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of [[sex | sex]].

SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The purpose and effect of the Amendment would be to prohibit many legal distinctions between men and women, and boys and girls. An all-male draft or male-only combat regimens would presumably become illegal. But, neither equal representation of boys and girls on sports teams, nor the termination of all-boys or all-girls sports teams, would be required, since the law treats some gender distinctions as a ''bona fida operating qualification'' for which discrimination is allowed.

35 out of 38 states passed this amendment, but opposition led by Phyllis Schlafly then defeated it. Congress then extended the deadline to 1982 in legislation that a court later invalidated, but no more states passed the amendment in the additional three years anyway. Several states rescinded their prior passage of the amendment.

Feminism

2007-03-14T21:49:05Z

RonaldReagan:

Feminism is the philosophy that women deserve to have rights equal to those of men. Most feminist writing today concerns issues like [[abortion]], [[domestic violence]], [[rape]], [[maternity leave]], [[gay rights|lesbian rights]], child custody, and [[comparable worth]].

The Bible says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." -- I Tim. 2:9-15

Not all women are in favour of equal rights for women. One notable example is Phyllis Schlafly, who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1960s.

Al Gore

2007-03-14T21:46:24Z

RonaldReagan:

Al Gore was the 45th Vice President of the United States, after a distinguished career in the Senate and the House of Representatives. From 1993 to 2000 he helped lead America through eight of the most peaceful and prosperous years of our history. In the 2000 presidential election he won more votes than George W. Bush but lost to Bush in the electoral college. Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an advisor to Google. He also starred in a keynote presentation about the climate crisis, "An Inconveniet Truth," which won an Oscar.

In his early life, Al Gore attended Harvard University, enlisted to go to Vietnam, and worked as a journalist.

In his Senate career he proposed bills to fund the internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. He has consistentally been on the cutting edge of technology and the environment. As Vice President he cast the tie-breaking vote that brought the United States out of debt, and in 1998 he proposed legislation to make our airlines safer, but that was voted down by the Republican congress. In 1992 he wrote "Earth in the Balance" and in May 2007 another of his books is set to be published, "Assault on Reason."

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-14T21:44:29Z

RonaldReagan:

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world, started when a Coalition of the Willing drawn from [[NATO]] members including the United Kingdom<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], locating [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] - which have not yet been proven to exist - including "knowhow" to produce WMD, liberating the Iraqi people and securing American control over the region's oil. Currently the outcome of the war is unknown, although the main result so far has been to plunge the country into a state of severe religious sectarianism and civil war. There exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The Bush administration champions the war as part of the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]], although the topic is up for debate. The Administration has been widely criticized for numerous strategic blunders in the execution of the war, including the failure to have a post-invasion plan,{{fact}} though the American left has been criticized for its objections to the execution of the war, which is perceived by some as a failure to support the troops.{{fact}}

===Iraqi Liberation===
Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the proceeding months, were optimistic about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-Zogby poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better".<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled form Baghdad. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm</ref>

===Iraqi Resistance===
However, Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt</ref>.

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref>

===Iraqi Casualties===
The website http://www.iraqbodycount.org estimates that there have been fewer than 65,000 civilian casualties since the Iraq war, though this number is calculated from media reports and by their own admission, is only a sample of the true number of deaths.

On-the-ground academic research in Iraq has determined that approximately 600,000 more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than would have otherwise died in that time frame if the war was not raging.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss</ref> Pro-occupation proponents dispute the numbers, but few statisticians do, as the methodology is largely sound.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html</ref>

===Weapons of Mass Destruction===

While massive stockpiles and produciton facilities of Iraq's WMD programs have not been located, persons associated with the programs have been detained and documents related to various programs have yet to be translated. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], 30 September 2004.</ref> Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the [[Gulf War|First Gulf War]], and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Earth

2007-03-14T21:36:41Z

RonaldReagan: /* Questionable passage */

==U. S. Customary units==
I don't know what Conservapedia's policy on units and dimensions is, but taking the lead from the "American" spelling policy, I have used U. S. Customary units rather than SI ("metric system") units throughout this article.

But please discuss, as SI units are more appropriate for scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 28 February 2007 (EST)

: To be blunt, using miles to describe distances in space is almost painful. However, it might make sense if the audience is mainly American to use both, maybe with a slash, or put the English unit in parentheses or brackets. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::Why is measuring space in the paces of a Roman soldier any more painful that measuring it in terms of two scratches in a platinum-iridium bar at Bureau Internationale de Poids et Mesures? (Yesyesyes I ''know'' it's really the distance light travels in 1/299142857.142857 seconds...)

::If inches, slugs, and poundals are good enough for the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter, they're good enough for me! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::('''Note''' for people who don't get my nerdy joke... either because it's obscure or because it's not actually funny... slugs and poundals are now-''very''-rarely-used English-based units of mass and force that were once taught to, maybe even used by engineers. The NASA Mars Climate Orbiter was an expensive space probe that crashed on Mars because some of the computer subsystems in it used U. S. Customary units and others used metric units and the software didn't convert properly... or something like that... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:50, 1 March 2007 (EST))

::: Well, it creates cognitivie dissonance when one talks about science using other units. It is somewhat similar to using SI to talk about halachah rather than using things like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke%27zayit Ke'Zayit] (ok, maybe not the best analogy, since everyone agrees on the conversion from SI to English). As for the Mars Climate Orbiter, you do know that that was just the FNORD Illuminati coverup for what really happened to it FNORD ? Joking aside, giving it in English units only just makes headaches for citation issues and forces people to make more conversions when trying to actually use the data. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:19, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== I've started a discussion of the metric and "English" question... ==

...one the [[Talk:The_Conservapedia_Commandments#.22Metric.22_vs._.22English.22_units_in_scientific_articles.3F|Conservapedia Commandments talk page.]]

I'd like to know how people want to handle units and dimensions in scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Explanation of the "trivia"==
I don't object to removing the trivia about "mostly harmless." That was the previous prank content. (I never would have inserted it in a general article about the Earth that I was writing from scratch).
I want to explain ''why'' I left it in.
*I like to "moderate, not obliterate." If someone is trying to make a point that I disagree with, but that is valid in the sense of being a widely held point of view, I may tone down overstatement or remove clearly inaccurate factual material or label it as opinion, but I try not to remove it entirely and I try to be sure that a reader will still understand what point was being made. In this case, I was trying to transmute prank content into valid content, rather than remove it.
*For the benefit of lurking pranksters, I wanted to show that Conservapedia was aware of what they were up to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection ==

I am going to similarly object to the protection of this article. Furthermore, you've added in what seems to be an unnecessary point. Since the original article didn't discuss formation issues, it seems to me that you added it in just so you could put the quote in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:48, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:I do not think protection was necessary here. The article was not vandalised. Joshua simply edited out what he felt was an irrelevant sentence. I am unblocking this article, but before you edit it further, please discuss the changes you plan to make here. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection against evolutionist suppression of material - namely JoshuaZ ==

I protected this page. [[User:JoshuaZ]], who I believe is a vociferous evolutionist who supresses [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]] material, edited out my material which stated the following: In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [http://creationwiki.org/Astronomy_quotes] I believe this material was reasonable to include and only an unreasonable person would delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative
*I don't know if protection is necessary against a single user, but due to the contentious nature of this subject, perhaps it would be best if it were protected so that potential edits would have to be discussed first. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:58 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Age of the Earth ==

I feel that the term "most scientists" is less accurate than "evolutionists" since the first term does not make clear just who believes that the Earth is billions of years old while the second does. The term "evolutionists" also makes it clear just why they believe--in order to make it so there is enough time for macroevolution to happen. Finally, I think the term "most scientists" is biased against creation scientists. Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest, though evolutionists cannot seem to remember that. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 20:49 1 March 2007 (EST)
*I see the issue with "most scientists" but I strongly disagree with the characterization "evolutionists." The "modern synthesis" or "Neodarwinism" of the 1950s (associated with George Gaylord Simpson) was partly about bringing the paleontologists on board. Before that time, paleontologists as a group were by no means convinced of Darwinian evolution. However, they certainly were in agreement with geologists about the geological time scale and the general age of the Earth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)
* Agreeing with Dpb, while someone who accepts biological evolution will almost certainly accept the age of the earth, they are not intrinsically connected either through science or theology. For example, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe minsitries (a prominent Old Earth Creationist ministry) accepts that the earth 4.5 x 10^9 years old but does not accept biological evolution. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)
**I don't think that bringing Hugh Ross helps your case. He clearly doesn't have Biblical reasons for believing the Earth to be billions of years old, he's simply compromising the clear meaning of Genesis, much like theistic evolutionists (though he obviously doesn't compromise as much as they do). [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:56 1 March 2007 (EST)
*** Whether or not Ross has a biblical basis isn't relevant to the point- accepting evolution is not the same as accepting the age of the earth, and we shouldn't confuse the two (I would incidentally agree that from a purely textual position I find Ross's position to be hard to defend), Also, commenting on "most scientists" actually science is decided by consensus in so far as what opinion has the most people in a given field matters, not in so far as whether they are right in some absolute sense but in so far as it indicates what most of the people who have studied the matter have come to that conclusion. Therefore, unless one spends a massive amount of time studying the matter, one should generally presume that the majority of expert is correct. I'm not arguing that it always is, or even that it is in this case, merely that it is a reasonable presumption in science and that is therefore relevant. (To use an example that may drive it home, if there are 1000 qualified scientists who say Xthe Sun and 1 who says ~X, when deciding policy, we generally presume that the 1000 are likely to be correct about X and will only prepare as a minor eventuallity for ~X). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:21, 1 March 2007 (EST)
*Many young Earth creationist organizations love to quote Barr on that quote, but I don't think Barr was even a Christian from what I've read. I'm not quite comfortable with it being here, particularly because many people who are scientifically convinced that the Earth is old (as I am) may see this and become convinced that Christianity cannot be true. I don't want that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Questionable passage ==

The passage "The fact that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun is taken by many Christians to be evidence of God's existence." is arguing that the anthropomorphic principle is attributed to a higher power. While there is a website that makes this argument, it does not mean that many Christians believe it. The continued debate about the existence of water and possibly ancient life on Mars also undermines this argument. If one was to look at the projected life of the Sun, in about 5 billion years from now it will become a red giant at which time places like Titan may sit in the goldilocks zone for the Sun. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I changed it to acount for your complaint. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, and it might be better said as "many theists" instead of "many Christians," as I'm pretty sure other religious groups have noticed the distance thing as well. Also, I'm not sure it's exactly accurate to say that the Earth's distance is the reason it's suitable for life, while Venus's closeness and Mars's distance are the reason they're unsuitable. There are also atmospheric properties that account for this--Mars' atmosphere is very thin, so it keeps less heat, while Venus' is thich and heavy, so it keeps much more. It doesn't undermine the argument, but it's reasonable to include it.--[[User:John|John]] 22:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I am new to Conservapedia, but am having trouble matching up your Commandments with the lack of evidence in most of the articles. For one, the comment referenced above reading "The fact that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun..." I checked this reference and it's clearly religious propaganda with no kind of reference or proof for this statement. Just because someone out there publishes something on a website does not make it worthy of "'''quoting'''". Most of the articles I've seen on this site have literally NO FACTUAL INFORMATION to back them up. Yet your so-called Commandments require this. From what I can tell, no one here has the right to be critical of Wikipedia... I can understand differing perspectives, but most articles on this site are way off base. And there's the fact that this entire site forgets the fact that America is just one piece of an enormous pie, and Christianity is not the only religion. -- Belaboo, 13 March 2007

== Sun orbiting the Earth ==

Come on people, it clearly states in the bible that the Earth is in a fixed position and the Sun orbits around it. Are you people serious about countering anti-Christian bias, or not? [[User:RonaldReagan|RonaldReagan]] 17:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Earth

2007-03-13T23:20:29Z

RonaldReagan:

==Earth Information==

The Earth is orbited by the Sun at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. Many non-Christian liberals believe the Earth orbits the Sun, but conservatives are of the view that there is insufficient evidence to prove this and prefer to take the biblical view that the Sun orbits the Earth (Psalm 104:5 says: "[The LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved"). It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible.

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

==Christianity and the Earth==

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

Evolutionists claim that scientific evidence, obtained through the [[scientific method]], suggests otherwise, dating the earth at beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> In addition, many human societies predate the alleged creation of the world at 4000 B.C.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

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

==References==
<references/>