Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T11:40:17Z

Splodge: /* Age of the earth */

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T11:38:56Z

Splodge: /* Age of the earth */

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If thet RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstatiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-16T11:37:50Z

Splodge: /* Age of the earth */

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If thet RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy reguarding unsubstatiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Herbivore

2007-03-24T11:32:02Z

Splodge:

A [[consumers|consumer]] that eats [[producers]] exclusively.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>

Sheep, deer<ref>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=870952003</ref> and cows<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070308/od_afp/indiaanimaloffbeat_070308082927</ref> are now known to actively seek out and eat small animals.
Zoologists are now considering that there may be a case for having them reclassified as carnivores.

==See also==
*[[Carnivore]]
*[[Omnivore]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Loch Ness Monster

2007-03-23T23:36:24Z

Splodge:

Perhaps the most famous [[cryptid]] is the '''Loch Ness monster''' also known as Nessie.Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported. There are three possible explanations for such reports:

*Nessie really does exist, and the sightings are evidence of this.
*People eager to believe the legend of the Loch Ness monster are interpreting any unusual movement or shape in or near the water as Nessie
* A lot of people are lying about what they've seen.

Loch Ness itself is the largest lake in [[Great Britain]]. It is 23 miles long, one mile wide, and almost 900 feet deep in places thus making a full search of the lake unfeasible. The present day Loch Ness is about 10,000 years old and dates from the end of the last [[Ice Age]] (which lasted more than 20,000 years). During that age, the Great Glen was occupied by a huge glacier which filled the valley above the level of the present watershed, and extended into the Moray Firth. This glacier found the shattered along the fault easy to erode, which accounts for the great depth of Loch Ness to 600 feet below sea-level. The underwater perimeter of the lake is glacially smoothed and very steep. Above Foyers Bay at the deepest section, there is 500 feet of water only 60 feet out from the bank.

==Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

In the March of 2005 two American students visiting Scotland claimed to have found an enormous tooth (possibly belonging to Nessie) lodged in the carcass of a deer along the shore of the loch. However, (so they said) a game warden who happened to be passing by almost immediately confiscated the tooth from them, though not before they got a few pictures of it. The students subsequently created a website to publicize their find and lobby for the return of the tooth. But animal experts identified the "tooth" from its picture as the antler of a roe muntjac deer. The website and accompanying story then turned out to be a publicity stunt for a Nessie-themed novel by Steve Alten titled ''The Loch''.

==Nessie's Identity==
There are numerous theories on what the identity of Nessie is, but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Loch Ness monster enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]].

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster is. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but there are two facts against it. The plesiosaur was supposed to have died out almost 70 million years ago, but of course there are problems with that too. Unless killed off by man, like whales, sea dwelling creatures tend to do very well, they have a nearly unlimited space to live in and a virtually unending food supply. Because plesiosaurs were found all around the world a single catastrophe such as a [[meteorite]], supervolcano eruption, disease, or predation may not be able explain why all plesiosaurs died. Another problem is that it is hardly ever seen at the surface, and since plesiosaurs were air breathing animals, they would have to come up for air many times a day.

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or the [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but it a few may be around today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reputed to be living in Loch Morar.<ref>http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm</ref> It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all mainstream evolutionist scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm
[[Category: Biology]]

Scotland

2007-03-23T21:58:23Z

Splodge:

Scotland is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]]; about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbour England.

==Merger with England==
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns.
==Fame==
Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalised in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the first country to adopt English as its official language decades before England, being the first industrial nation while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of golf.

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle.

Scotland's motto is Nemo me impune lacessit ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as `Wha daur meddle wi` me` in Lallans.
The original motto, used since the time of William Wallace, was "Gie ye the Boak" ("Give all to the task") but it was changed during the visit of George IV to Scotland in 1822 at the monarch's request.

==References==
<references/>

Scotland

2007-03-23T21:57:39Z

Splodge:

Scotland is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]]; about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbour England.

==Merger with England==
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns.
==Fame==
Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalised in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the first country to adopt English as its official language decades before England, being the first industrial nation while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of golf.

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle.

Scotlands motto is Nemo me impune lacessit ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as `Wha daur meddle wi` me` in Lallans.
The original motto, used since the time of William Wallace, was "Gie ye the Boak" ("Give all to the task") but it was changed during the visit of George IV to Scotland in 1822 at the monarchs request.

==References==
<references/>

Scotland

2007-03-23T21:46:05Z

Splodge:

Scotland is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]]; about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbour England.

==Merger with England==
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns.
==Fame==
Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalised in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the first country to adopt English as its official language decades before England, being the first industrial nation while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of golf.

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle.

Scotlands motto is Nemo me impune lacessit ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as `Wha daur meddle wi` me` in Lallans.
The original motto, used since the time of William Wallace, was "Gie ye the Boak" ("Give all to the task") but it was changed during the visit of George IV to Scotland in 1822 at the monarchs request.

Gambit

2007-03-23T20:36:16Z

Splodge:

A gambit is a calculated risk, particularly of losing a piece in chess, in order to obtain a strategic advantage.

Also a small tool used to attach a cantle to a sporran.

Loch Ness Monster

2007-03-23T19:20:38Z

Splodge:

Perhaps the most famous [[cryptid]] is the '''Loch Ness monster''' also known as Nessie.Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported. There are three possible explanations for such reports:

*Nessie really does exist, and the sightings are evidence of this.
*People eager to believe the legend of the Loch Ness monster are interpreting any unusual movement or shape in or near the water as Nessie
* A lot of people are lying about what they've seen.

Loch Ness itself is the largest lake in [[Great Britain]]. It is 23 miles long, one mile wide, and almost 900 feet deep in places thus making a full search of the lake unfeasible. The present day Loch Ness is about 10,000 years old and dates from the end of the last [[Ice Age]] (which lasted more than 20,000 years). During that age, the Great Glen was occupied by a huge glacier which filled the valley above the level of the present watershed, and extended into the Moray Firth. This glacier found the shattered along the fault easy to erode, which accounts for the great depth of Loch Ness to 600 feet below sea-level. The underwater perimeter of the lake is glacially smoothed and very steep. Above Foyers Bay at the deepest section, there is 500 feet of water only 60 feet out from the bank.

==Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

In the March of 2005 two American students visiting Scotland claimed to have found an enormous tooth (possibly belonging to Nessie) lodged in the carcass of a deer along the shore of the loch. However, (so they said) a game warden who happened to be passing by almost immediately confiscated the tooth from them, though not before they got a few pictures of it. The students subsequently created a website to publicize their find and lobby for the return of the tooth. But animal experts identified the "tooth" from its picture as the antler of a roe muntjac deer. The website and accompanying story then turned out to be a publicity stunt for a Nessie-themed novel by Steve Alten titled ''The Loch''.

==Nessie's Identity==
There are numerous theories on what the identity of Nessie is, but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Loch Ness monster enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]].

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster is. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but there are two facts against it. The plesiosaur was supposed to have died out almost 70 million years ago, but of course there are problems with that too. Unless killed off by man, like whales, sea dwelling creatures tend to do very well, they have a nearly unlimited space to live in and a virtually unending food supply. Because plesiosaurs were found all around the world a single catastrophe such as a [[meteorite]], supervolcano eruption, disease, or predation may not be able explain why all plesiosaurs died. Another problem is that it is hardly ever seen at the surface, and since plesiosaurs were air breathing animals, they would have to come up for air many times a day.

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or the [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but it a few may be around today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reputed to be living in Loch Morar. It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all mainstream evolutionist scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm
[[Category: Biology]]

Loch Ness Monster

2007-03-23T19:19:44Z

Splodge:

Perhaps the most famous [[cryptid]] is the '''Loch Ness monster''' also known as Nessie.Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported. There are three possible explanations for such reports:

*Nessie really does exist, and the sightings are evidence of this.
*People eager to believe the legend of the Loch Ness monster are interpreting any unusual movement or shape in or near the water as Nessie
* A lot of people are lying about what they've seen.

Loch Ness itself is the largest lake in [[Great Britain]]. It is 23 miles long, one mile wide, and almost 900 feet deep in places thus making a full search of the lake unfeasible. The present day Loch Ness is about 10,000 years old and dates from the end of the last [[Ice Age]] (which lasted more than 20,000 years). During that age, the Great Glen was occupied by a huge glacier which filled the valley above the level of the present watershed, and extended into the Moray Firth. This glacier found the shattered along the fault easy to erode, which accounts for the great depth of Loch Ness to 600 feet below sea-level. The underwater perimeter of the lake is glacially smoothed and very steep. Above Foyers Bay at the deepest section, there is 500 feet of water only 60 feet out from the bank.

==Sightings==
What may be the first sighting of the Loch Ness monster was in 565 AD by the missionary [[Saint Columba]], who was visiting [[Scotland]] to spread the [[Gospel]]. He needed to cross the loch, so one of his followers swam out in the water to reach their boat, which had not been tied properly and had floated away from shore. Then a large creature arose from the water and seemed that it was going to devour the man. Saint Columba ordered the rest of his followers to be quiet, and in the name of [[Jesus]] rebuked the monster. The creature drew back "as if pulled by ropes" and the man was left unharmed.

The modern history of Nessie began in 1933 when a new road was completed along the northern shore of the Loch, providing easy access to unobstructed views of the water. Soon after this, a couple spotted an "enormous animal" in the Loch. The ''Inverness Courier'' wrote up their sighting, describing what they saw as a "monster;" intense media interest followed; and thus was born the modern legend of the Loch Ness Monster.

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray was walking back from [[church]] when he saw an "object of considerable dimensions—making a big splash with spray on the surface" of the Loch. Luckily he had his [[camera]] with him, so he began taking pictures. Only one of the pictures showed anything. Nessie believers hailed it as the first photographic evidence of the monster. Skeptics, however, dismissed it as a blurry mess that doesn't show anything at all

On April 19, 1934, Colonel Robert Wilson, a surgeon, was driving along the north shore of the Loch early in the morning when he noticed something large moving in the water, so he stopped and took a picture of it. At least, that was his story. For the next sixty years this picture was regarded as one of the best pieces of evidence of Nessie's existence and was known as the Surgeon's Photo. It wasn't until 1994 that the full truth came out. What Wilson had taken a picture of was not the Loch Ness Monster. It was a toy [[dinosaur]]'s head attached to a toy [[submarine]] . Moreover, Wilson hadn't even taken the infamous photograph. He had simply been the frontman for an elaborate [[hoax]].

In the March of 2005 two American students visiting Scotland claimed to have found an enormous tooth (possibly belonging to Nessie) lodged in the carcass of a deer along the shore of the loch. However, (so they said) a game warden who happened to be passing by almost immediately confiscated the tooth from them, though not before they got a few pictures of it. The students subsequently created a website to publicize their find and lobby for the return of the tooth. But animal experts identified the "tooth" from its picture as the antler of a roe muntjac deer. The website and accompanying story then turned out to be a publicity stunt for a Nessie-themed novel by Steve Alten titled ''The Loch''.

==Nessie's Identity==
There are numerous theories on what the identity of Nessie is, but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Loch Ness monster enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]].

===The Plesiosaur===
[[Plesiosaur]] is actually a broad term for extinct marine [[reptiles]] with long necks and flippers, but no one knows what type of plesiosaur the Loch Ness monster is. The elasmosaur, one of the largest of the plesiosaurs, is the considered to be the best candidate of those animals. There are others that also fit the description.

The infamous photographs taken by Robert H. Rines fit the plesiosaur theory, but there are two facts against it. The plesiosaur was supposed to have died out almost 70 million years ago, but of course there are problems with that too. Unless killed off by man, like whales, sea dwelling creatures tend to do very well, they have a nearly unlimited space to live in and a virtually unending food supply. Because plesiosaurs were found all around the world a single catastrophe such as a [[meteorite]], supervolcano eruption, disease, or predation may not be able explain why all plesiosaurs died. Another problem is that it is hardly ever seen at the surface, and since plesiosaurs were air breathing animals, they would have to come up for air many times a day.

===The Eel===
Probably the most scientifically plausible theory is that the Loch Ness monster could be an eel. Eels fit the hump description much better than the plesiosaur, but one of its faults is that the monster often sticks its head up out of the water, a characteristic not usually attributed to the eel. Another is that no eel has been found that reaches the alleged length of the Loch Ness monster. The largest known eel, the conger eel, reaches about 10 feet long and about 250 to 350 pounds.

===The Zeuglodon===
The [[zeuglodon]], or the [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but it a few may be around today. The alleged monster of Okanagan, referred to as Ogopogo, also seems to be this sort of creature. The zeuglodon may actually be too large however; they grew to over 70 feet in length, yet tales of the size of the Loch Ness monster do not seem to exceed around 50 feet in length. It also shares one of the problems that the eel has; it doesn't have a long neck to stick out of the water.

===Other Scottish Monsters===
There is another creature reupted to be living in Loch Morar. It may be a close relative of the monster in Loch Ness. The Scottish parliament has recently initiated an investigation to determine if a breeding program could be established.

Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all mainstream evolutionist scientists are still unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm
[[Category: Biology]]