Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Islam

2007-06-21T20:18:16Z

Totnesmartin: Undo revision 204385 by Special:Contributions/Nutnut (User talk:Nutnut) - reverting vandalism

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a 7th century [[Arab]] [[politics|political]] and religious figure. The word "Islam" means "submission." The followers of Islam are called Muslims, or Moslems. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be [[God]]'s last and greatest [[prophet]]. The faith teaches that the Angel Gabriel appeared to him.

Muslims believe that God (Allah, in [[Arabic]]) revealed the [[Qur'an]] to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it <ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The [[Qur'an]] is considered to be the pure and [[holy]] word of Allah. Like [[Christianity]], and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]]. Islam claims to trace its roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Based upon this belief, [[the Bible]], [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]], is believed to have become corrupted as well.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], the Islamic holy city.]]

===Five Pillars of Islam===

*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except the Allah, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of Allah''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Christianity==

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him to be one of God's most important prophets. However, the Qur'an warns against worshiping Jesus, for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified:

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
"Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."

Qur'an 5:73-75

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.

==Islam and Paganism==

Although Muslims profess belief in a single [[Allah|God]], some believe Islam has its roots in an earlier polytheistic system. By this thinking Allah is linked to an earlier moon deity, although it should be brought up that there is no mention of this in the Qur'an, where Allah is cited as the God of [[Abraham]].<ref>The Qur'an, Sura 37 [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Quran-Allamah-Nooruddin/dp/0963206702]</ref><ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>

==Sharia==

[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of Allah by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two
[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Chordata

2007-06-19T22:33:37Z

Totnesmartin: oopsie

'''Chordata''' is a [[phylum]] of [[animal]]s, named after their common feature - possession of a [[spinal cord]].

The phylum includes several [[class (biology)|classes]]:
*'''Mammalia''' - the [[mammal]]s
*'''Aves''' - the [[bird]]s
*'''Reptilia''' - The [[reptile]]s
*'''Amphibia''' - the [[amphibian]]s (such as [[frog]]s, [[newt]]s and [[salamander]]s)
*'''Pisces''' - the [[fish]]

There are also several obscure animals including the [[acorn worm]], [[lancelet]] and [[hagfish]].

Apart from the spinal cord, other common features include a single [[brain]] and a zig-zag [[muscle]] structure in the [[torso]].

Scientists believe that the chordata are closest to the [[arthropoda]] (shelled, joint-legged animals such as [[insect]]s and [[crustacean]]s) and [[annelida]] (earthworms) in biology, due to common features such as [[segment]]ation, which are not seen in other phyla such as the [[mollusca]] (molluscs) or [[coelenterata]] [[jellyfish]] and [[sea anemone]]s.

[[category:biology]]

Chordata

2007-06-19T22:16:26Z

Totnesmartin: New article, hope it's comprehensible!

'''Chordata''' is a [[phylum]] of [[animal]]s, named after their common feature - possession of a [[spinal cord]].

The phylum includes several [[class (biology)|classes]]:
*'''Mammalia''' - the [[mammal]]s
*'''Aves''' - the [[bird]]s
*'''Reptilia''' - The [[reptile]]s
*'''Amphibia''' - the Amphibian]]s (such as [[frog]]s, [[newt]]s and [[salamander]]s)
*'''Pisces''' - the [[fish]]

There are also several obscure animals including the [[acorn worm]], [[lancelet]] and [[hagfish]].

Apart from the spinal cord, other common features include a single [[brain]] and a zig-zag [[muscle]] structure in the [[torso]].

Scientists believe that the chordata are closest to the [[arthropoda]] (shelled, joint-legged animals such as [[insect]]s and [[crustacean]]s) and [[annelida]] (earthworms) in biology, due to common features such as [[segment]]ation, which are not seen in other phyla such as the [[mollusca]] (molluscs) or [[coelenterata]] [[jellyfish]] and [[sea anemone]]s.

[[category:biology]]

Pelican

2007-06-19T21:52:04Z

Totnesmartin: caps

The '''Pelican''' is one of the largest types of water bird. Pelicans are found in many parts of the world, but prefer tropical and temperate areas. they are well known for their large bills, to which is attached a pouch. Using this thay can catch a large amount of fish in one go. The [[Brown Pelican]] lives in North America, and is a familiar sight in some coastal states.
[[category:birds]]

Pelican

2007-06-19T21:51:38Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The '''Pelican''' is one of the largest types of water bird. Pelicans are found in many parts of the world, but prefer tropical and temperate areas. they are well known for their large bills, to which is attached a pouch. Using this thay can catch a large amount of fish in one go. The [[Brown Pelican]] lives in North america, and is a familiar sight in some coastal states.
[[category:birds]]

20th century

2007-06-19T21:39:37Z

Totnesmartin: new section - independence

The '''20th century''' (1901-2000) has been called "The American Century" and "The Bloodiest Century", because during most of it [[America]] was fighting wars for [[democracy]]. The 20th century was the century of [[World War I]], [[World War II]], [[Korea]], [[Vietnam]], the Iran-Iraq War, and [[Iraq]], as well as smaller conflicts such as [[Rwanda]] and the [[Falkland Islands]].

However, the 20th century was also a century of inventions. The electronic [[computer]] was invented in the 20th century, and popularized by pioneers like [[Bill Gates]] of [[Microsoft]] and Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple Computers. Many inventions that we take for granted today, such as antibiotics, plastic, SCUBA gear, the transistor, the microwave oven, radar, polio vaccine, the airplane, and the cellular phone appeared in the 20th Century. <ref>http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/1900a.shtml</ref>
On the other hand, some inventions, like the [[telegraph]] and the [[steamship]], became obsolete and all but disappeared.

==in the USA==
Presidents in the 20th century included [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], [[John F. Kennedy]], [[Ronald Reagan]], and [[George H. W. Bush]] among many others.

Fox, the company in charge of [[Fox News]], used to be called [[20th Century Fox]], but they changed their name shortly before the century was about to change.[http://www.hollywoodlostandfound.net/stories/studiologos/page3.html]

==Independence==
A major theme of the twentieth century was the decline of the worldwide empires of the previous century. [[Australia]] became independent on January 1 1901. The end of the First World War led to independence for several European countries such as [[Poland]] and [[Hungary]]. The following two decades saw independence for [[Egypt]], [[Saudi Arabia]] and [[Iraq]], among others, but the Second World war weakened the colonial powers so much that they granted independence to most of their colonies. [[India]], [[Indonesia]] and [[Israel]] were among ten countries gaining independence in the 1940s, became independent first, followed by a dozen [[Africa]]n states in 1960, and nearly every remaining African and Caribbean state in the two following decades. By 1980 [[Hong Kong]] (British) was the only overseas posession with more than one million inhabitants. Finally the 1990s saw the breakup of the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Yugoslavia]] - eighteen new countries were founded in a few years after forty years of European stability.

In contrast to this wave of new nations, a few countries lost their freedom. [[Tibet]], [[Hyderabad]] and [[Montenegro]] fell to larger nations by war or politics; [[East Germany]] and [[South Yemen]] joined their larger neighbours voluntarily and peacefully.

In all, over a hundred countries had became independent by 2000.
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Centuries]]

Doctor Who

2007-06-19T21:04:33Z

Totnesmartin: /* Political implications */ Other examples from long ago

Doctor Who is a [[BBC]] TV programme started in 1963 and still going strong today. It centres around a character named The Doctor, who travels around the universe in a [[time machine]] called the Tardis, which resembles a 1940s British Police Phone Booth, but is much bigger inside than outside, usually with a female companion that he picks up along the way.

The program was initially cancelled in 1989, following some years of declining interest, but was resurrected for a TV movie in 1996. A new set of series began in 2005 with a much improved budget and more consistently high-quality acting and writing.

The series is currently airing on [[BBC One]] in the UK, [[CBC Television]] in Canada and the [[SciFi Channel]] in the US.

The Doctor has the ability to regenerate his body when mortally weakened, a useful plot device that has allowed the role to be played on TV by ten different actors so far.

==[[William Hartnell]] (1963-66)==
The first actor to play the Doctor portrayed him as a cantankerous old man. Initially a somewhat dark character, he became more grandfatherly in later episodes. Hartnell's era introduced the most well-known of the Doctor's foes, the [[Dalek]]s.

==[[Patrick Troughton]] (1966-1969)==
Troughton's Doctor was an impish figure, whose gimmicks included playing the recorder. In this period, much of which is lost, the program felt the influence of [[Star Trek]] somewhat.

==[[Jon Pertwee]] (1970-1974)==
The third Doctor was Earth-bound for much of his tenure, due to budgetary constraints. This period had a reliance on gadgetry (including the [[Sonic Screwdriver]] and the [[Whomobile]]) under the influence of [[James Bond]], and featured UNIT, a UN organisation dedicated to combatting extra-terrestrial threats.

==[[Tom Baker]] (1974-1981)==
By far the most popular and iconic Doctor, Baker, with his seven-foot long scarf and fondness for Jelly Babies played the role for longer than any other actor. His time featured arguably the best scripts of the Classic Series, including the thought-provoking ''Genesis of the Daleks'', and [[Douglas Adams]]' witty ''City of Death''.

==[[Peter Davison]] (1981-1984)==
The fifth Doctor was a vulnerable character, part of an effort to move to program into the realm of 'serious' Sci-Fi.

==[[Colin Baker]] (1984-1986)==
Dogged by poor writing, an absurd costume and misguided attempts to darken the Doctor's character, Colin Baker's portrayal is often regarded as the least satisfying of all.

==[[Sylvester McCoy]] (1986-1989)==
Initially not much of an improvement, the quality of the series improved markedly towards the end. However, this was not enough to save it, and it ended in 1989.

==[[Paul McGann]] (1996)==
McGann played the role for the pilot episode of what was to be a new series for US consumption. However the compromises made for the US market alienated old fans, and failed to win new ones, and the series was never made.

==[[Christopher Eccleston]] (2005)==
A far more successful attempt to rejuvenate the format came in 2005 from producer [[Russell T. Davies]]. Eccleston, already an actor of considerable repute ([[Shallow Grave]], [[Let Him Have It]]), brought an edge to the role rarely seen before, whilst sophisticated scripts by such writers as [[Stephen Moffat]] and [[Mark Gattis]] helped the program to appeal to a wide age range. Although regarded as an instant success, Eccleston had no desire to become tied to the role and left after a single series.

==[[David Tennant]] (2006-)==
The current actor playing the Doctor was also well-known beforehand ([[Casanova]], [[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]). His portrayal is more humorous and vivacious than Eccleston's.

==Political and social themes==
Several stories in the series have been subtly or overtly political in their themes. For instance, ''The Green Death'' (1973) emphasised the dangers of [[Pollution]] and big business - while the following year's ''Invasion of the Dinosaurs'' featured a contrasting menace -pro-environment extremists. Other stories have taken their themes from current news stories of the time, such as the [[United Kingdom]]'s entry into the [[Common Market]].
In a recent episode, the Daleks - Doctor Who's most dangerous enemy, a race of creatures who are physically shriveled and weak but contained within an armored tank-like body - take over Manhattan. They ruthlessly exploit workers engaged in construction and repair on the Empire State Building. This was reported in the British newspaper [[The Independent]] as a metaphor for the rampant abuse of capitalism. Writers on [[The Guardian]] have commented that this is evidence of the BBC pumping out "relentless socialist propaganda".

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Doctor Who

2007-06-19T20:45:17Z

Totnesmartin: /* Tom Baker (1974-1981) */ italics

Doctor Who is a [[BBC]] TV programme started in 1963 and still going strong today. It centres around a character named The Doctor, who travels around the universe in a [[time machine]] called the Tardis, which resembles a 1940s British Police Phone Booth, but is much bigger inside than outside, usually with a female companion that he picks up along the way.

The program was initially cancelled in 1989, following some years of declining interest, but was resurrected for a TV movie in 1996. A new set of series began in 2005 with a much improved budget and more consistently high-quality acting and writing.

The series is currently airing on [[BBC One]] in the UK, [[CBC Television]] in Canada and the [[SciFi Channel]] in the US.

The Doctor has the ability to regenerate his body when mortally weakened, a useful plot device that has allowed the role to be played on TV by ten different actors so far.

==[[William Hartnell]] (1963-66)==
The first actor to play the Doctor portrayed him as a cantankerous old man. Initially a somewhat dark character, he became more grandfatherly in later episodes. Hartnell's era introduced the most well-known of the Doctor's foes, the [[Dalek]]s.

==[[Patrick Troughton]] (1966-1969)==
Troughton's Doctor was an impish figure, whose gimmicks included playing the recorder. In this period, much of which is lost, the program felt the influence of [[Star Trek]] somewhat.

==[[Jon Pertwee]] (1970-1974)==
The third Doctor was Earth-bound for much of his tenure, due to budgetary constraints. This period had a reliance on gadgetry (including the [[Sonic Screwdriver]] and the [[Whomobile]]) under the influence of [[James Bond]], and featured UNIT, a UN organisation dedicated to combatting extra-terrestrial threats.

==[[Tom Baker]] (1974-1981)==
By far the most popular and iconic Doctor, Baker, with his seven-foot long scarf and fondness for Jelly Babies played the role for longer than any other actor. His time featured arguably the best scripts of the Classic Series, including the thought-provoking ''Genesis of the Daleks'', and [[Douglas Adams]]' witty ''City of Death''.

==[[Peter Davison]] (1981-1984)==
The fifth Doctor was a vulnerable character, part of an effort to move to program into the realm of 'serious' Sci-Fi.

==[[Colin Baker]] (1984-1986)==
Dogged by poor writing, an absurd costume and misguided attempts to darken the Doctor's character, Colin Baker's portrayal is often regarded as the least satisfying of all.

==[[Sylvester McCoy]] (1986-1989)==
Initially not much of an improvement, the quality of the series improved markedly towards the end. However, this was not enough to save it, and it ended in 1989.

==[[Paul McGann]] (1996)==
McGann played the role for the pilot episode of what was to be a new series for US consumption. However the compromises made for the US market alienated old fans, and failed to win new ones, and the series was never made.

==[[Christopher Eccleston]] (2005)==
A far more successful attempt to rejuvenate the format came in 2005 from producer [[Russell T. Davies]]. Eccleston, already an actor of considerable repute ([[Shallow Grave]], [[Let Him Have It]]), brought an edge to the role rarely seen before, whilst sophisticated scripts by such writers as [[Stephen Moffat]] and [[Mark Gattis]] helped the program to appeal to a wide age range. Although regarded as an instant success, Eccleston had no desire to become tied to the role and left after a single series.

==[[David Tennant]] (2006-)==
The current actor playing the Doctor was also well-known beforehand ([[Casanova]], [[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]). His portrayal is more humorous and vivacious than Eccleston's.

==Political implications==

In a recent episode, the Daleks - Doctor Who's most dangerous enemy, a race of creatures who are physically shriveled and weak but contained within an armored tank-like body - take over Manhattan. They ruthlessly exploit workers engaged in construction and repair on the Empire State Building. This was reported in the British newspaper [[The Independent]] as a metaphor for the rampant abuse of capitalism. Writers on [[The Guardian]] have commented that this is evidence of the BBC pumping out "relentless socialist propaganda".

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

The Lord of the Rings

2007-06-19T20:34:37Z

Totnesmartin: /* Christianity */ Christian allegory ref

[[Image:Mhjfjfr7.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Cover for the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.]]

'''The Lord of the Rings''' is the best-selling fantasy novel of the twentieth century. It written by British professor [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]. Conceived by the author as a 6-book work (with compendious appendices and an index), it was released by the publisher in three volumes:

#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring]]'' 
#''[[The Two Towers]]'' 
#''[[The Return of the King]]'' 

''The Lord of the Rings'' was published in hardbound in 1954 and 1955, but was known only to a small audience of aficionados until 1965. At that time, J. R. R. Tolkien himself was known primarily to scholars for his work on [[Beowulf]]. This changed when an American paperback publisher released a "pirated" paperback edition, {{Fact}} paying Tolkien nothing, in the belief that Tolkien's copyright in the U. S. was defective because of a technicality. Tolkien reached a legal settlement with this publisher, and another publisher released an authorized edition for which Tolkien was paid royalties. The book was an instant success particularly among college students.

== Story ==
''The Lord of the Rings'' is set in [[Middle-earth]], a vastly expanded version of the fictional world presented in ''[[The Hobbit]]'' and ''[[The Silmarillion]]''. It continues the story that ''The Hobbit'' began, but while ''The Hobbit'' was intended for children, ''The Lord of the Rings'' was written for all ages.

The story takes place at a time when the [[Elves]], who immortal, good, and fairest of all beings in the world, are leaving the war-weary world to sail to the blessed realm of Valinor. With the departure of the Elves, the Age of Men has come, but they are opposed by the Dark Lord, [[Sauron]]. Although Sauron is a formidable foe, most of his powers are bound to a magic [[Ring (Middle Earth)|Ring]] which was cut from his finger in a battle thousands of year ago. This Ring fell by chance into the hands of a [[hobbit]], [[Bilbo Baggins]] who in turn left it to his nephew and heir, [[Frodo Baggins]]. If this Ring is destroyed, it will strip Sauron of his power and free Middle-earth from his threat. The only way the Ring can be destroyed, however is by casting it into the fires of [[Mount Doom]], a volcano in the heart of Sauron's realm. The Lord of the Rings follows Frodo's adventures as he journeys to destroy Sauron's Ring.

Frodo's journey is interwoven with other themes as he joins a [[Fellowship of the Ring]], pledged to take it to Mount Doom where it can be destroyed. The ranger [[Aragorn|Strider]] and the wizard [[Gandalf]] are foremost among his companions.

== Languages ==
Though Tolkien was an excellent writer, his primary interest was [[The Languages of Tolkien|languages]]. Tolkien originally came up with Middle-earth as a world in which his languages could be spoken. {{Fact}} In an interview with the BBC in 1972, shortly before his death, Tolkien said that he came up with the concept of a hobbit in part because he had been embarrassed about his own below-average height in his early childhood, and liked to imagine a world where he could be "normal" or even possibly "a hero". {{Fact}}

== Christianity ==
J. R. R. Tolkien was a [[Roman Catholic]], and many readers see [[Christian]] undertones in ''The Lord of the Rings.'' <ref>"Much as it is possible to identify allegories of the Second World war into ''The Lord of the Rings'', it is possible to identify any number of Christian allegories as well" in Smith, J. and Matthews, J.C. ''The Lord of the Rings:the Films, the books, the radio series'' (Virgin Books 2004), p.116.</ref> The subtext is subtle, and altogether unintentional. Tolkien himself discounts the belief that he wrote the book as a direct Christian allegory, in contrast with the overt and acknowledged allegory in the works of Tolkien's friend, [[C.S. Lewis]].<ref>Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, # 129</ref>

==Film Version==
New Line Cinema has produced three films all of which have names which are derived from the three books in The Lord of the Rings. They were released from 2001 to 2003. Several Special Extended Editions have also been released each including four discs. All were directed by [[Peter Jackson]]. <ref> [[The Fellowship of the Ring]], Directed by Peter Jackson, Produced by Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson 2001. </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lord of the Rings, The}}
[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Supernova

2007-06-19T20:26:14Z

Totnesmartin: pulsar link

[[Image:Crab vlt big.jpg|right|thumb|The Crab Nebula]]
A supernova is the explosion of a very large [[star]] such that the star becomes extremely bright, perhaps even one billion times brighter than our [[sun]].

In 1054, Chinese astronomers recorded a supernova so bright that it was visible during the day. The explosion left behind a [[pulsar]] and a huge cloud of gas and dust known as the [[Crab Nebula]], which still can be seen today. [http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html]

==External links==
[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html NASA - Supernova]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Bram Stoker

2007-06-19T18:46:43Z

Totnesmartin: book titles in italics; rm redundant links

Abraham '''"Bram" Stoker''' was an author born in [[Dublin]] on November 8th 1847. Although in his lifetime, he wrote many novels and was a contributer to The Dublin Mail, an [[Irish]] newspaper, he is best remembered for his horror classic ''[[Dracula]]''. Prior to starting work on ''Dracula'', Stoker spent eight years researching [[European]] folklore and [[vampire]] myths and legends. Although he wrote other tales of the supernatural, none achieved the lasting fame of ''Dracula''.

He died on April 20th 1912 and was cremated. His ashes are displayed at Golder's Green crematorium in [[London]]. In [[Whitby]] where much of Dracula is set, there is a commemorative seat overlooking the harbour named in his memory.

[[Category:Authors|Stoker, Bram]]

Gannet

2007-06-19T18:19:07Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The Gannet is a large seabird found in the [[Atlantic Ocean]]. It is three feet long and mostly white, with a yellow head and blue eyes; they can take four years to reach their full adult plumage.

They nest in large groups on cliff ledges and small islands on the coasts of [[Europe]] and [[Canada]], although it is most common in the [[British Isles]]. They spend the winter at sea as far south as [[Mexico]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Africa]]. They are also occasional visitors to the [[Great Lakes]].

Gannets catch fish by diving into the sea at them from a great height.

[[Category:birds]]

Booby

2007-06-19T18:02:13Z

Totnesmartin: category

The '''booby''' is a large seabird, similar to the [[gannet]] - the main difference being that boobies rest on land, and gannets at sea. They are about the size of a [[goose]]. They catch fish by diving into the sea to catch them. Boobies nest in colonies on remote islands where their chicks are safe from predators.

There are four species found in American waters:
*[[Red-footed Booby]] - a rare visitor to the [[Dry Tortugas]] and [[California]]. This, at 28 inches, is the smallest species.
*[[Brown Booby]] - also a rare visitor to both coasts of the mainland United States, but it nests in the [[Baja California]] region.
*[[Blue-footed Booby]] - breeds on islands off California and [[Mexico]], but can stray to the [[Salton Sea]], [[Arizona]] and [[Texas]].
*[[Masked Booby]] - breeds on the Dry Tortugas but often strays to southern coasts. This is the largest of the Boobies at 32 inches in length.

==Source==
*''National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America'' (National Geographic 2002)

[[Category:birds]]

Booby

2007-06-19T17:58:52Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article. Despite the title, this is not a joke.

Tropicbird

2007-06-19T17:33:44Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The '''Tropicbirds''' are seabirds similar to [[gannet]]s and [[cormorant]]s. They are mostly white with some black parts, and have red bills and long, streamer-like tail feathers. They catch fish by diving into the sea for their prey.

There are three species found in American waters:
*[[White-tailed Tropicbird]] - [[Dry tortugas]] and occasionally further north.
*[[Red-billed Tropicbird]] - a rare visitor to [[California]]n waters and the [[Gulf of Mexico]] and Atlantic coast.
*[[Red-tailed Tropicbird]] - almost pure white; a rare vagrant to California.

[[category:birds]]

Loch Ness Monster

2007-06-05T10:34:59Z

Totnesmartin: /* Other Scottish Monsters */ rm unnecessary word

The '''Loch Ness monster''', also known as Nessie, is a well known [[cryptid]] claimed to live in [[Loch Ness]], a large lake in Scotland. Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported.

==Theories==

There are numerous theories to explain the reported sightings of the monster,
but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Nessie enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]]. The idea that it's merely a legend or hoax is far less appealing.

===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 might be. 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 with their confirmation as hoaxes they cannot be used as evidence. Plesiosaurs are generally believed to have died off approximately 70 million years ago, and while the survival of ''Coelocanth'' gives hope to cryptozoologists, the difficulties of a large, air-breathing reptile never being decisively spotted seem to speak against the possibility of a surviving plesiosaur. In addition, especially for as large a creature as a plesiosaur, the relative dearth of fish in Loch Ness would speak against the capability for supporting an isolated population of large animals.

Besides the hoax photograph, the plesiosaur theory has other problems. Loch Ness was created by glaciation, and the plesiosaur fossil evidence suggests that they lived in warm shallow seas. If Nessie was a plesiosaur, it would mean that a breeding population of cold-blooded reptiles survived for millions of years past the last evidence of their existence, swam in to the retreating cold glacial waters surrounding Scotland, and became trapped in the loch.<ref>http://www.loch-ness.org/candidates.html</ref>

===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 [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender, fairly serpentine whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but a few could conceivably have survived to 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 explanations==

===Trees===
The most likely explanation for many of the sightings was described in [[New Scientist]] as a rotting tree. As sunken trees rot they release a gas that could rise to the top of the surface, the trunk and branches of such trees resemble what many of the sightings claim to see. <ref>“The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113.</ref>

===Boat wakes===
Due to the shape of the lake, boat wakes in can create large standing waves that appear to rise above the lake. These elongated shapes might explain many of the sightings. <ref>http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/s-araya/currents.htm#Internal%20progressive%20waves</ref>

==History of alleged 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]].

On May 31, 2007, a video was released that is purportedly Nessie<ref>http://www.nbc10.com/news/13424766/detail.html</ref>.

===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 scientists are unconvinced of its existence.

==References==
*http://www.cryptozoology.com/
*http://www.nessie.co.uk/
*http://www.britishcongerclub.org.uk/
*http://www.nbc10.com/news/13424766/detail.html
*http://www.museumofhoaxes.com
*http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/morag/morag.htm

[[Category:Scottish Flora and Fauna]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Cryptids]]

Organic molecule

2007-05-27T21:28:12Z

Totnesmartin: spelling

A [[molecule]] that contains [[carbon]] and at least one of the following: [[hydrogen]], [[oxygen]], [[nitrogen]], [[sulfur]], and/or [[phosphorus]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia
Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

Frigatebird

2007-05-25T21:23:27Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The '''Frigatebirds''' are large [[seabird]]s found in tropical waters. There are five species, all very similar. they are related to [[Gannet]]s, [[Cormorant]]s and [[Pelican]]s.

In the breeding season the [[male]] takes on a startling appearance, when its red throat pouch swells up almost to the end of its bill, in order to attract a [[female]].

Frigatebirds are [[parasite]]s on other birds; they attack smaller birds and force them to give up their catch of fish.<ref>"Frigatebirds are pirates who harass incoming birds, especially boobies until the victim is so upset that it disgorges its catch" in [http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/Frigatebirds.html]</ref>

One species, the Magnificent Frigatebird, nests in North America, in the [[Dry Tortugas]] off [[Florida]].

==References==
<references/>

[[category:birds]]

Galápagos Islands

2007-05-25T20:57:07Z

Totnesmartin: /* Birds */ frigate bird -->.frigatebird

[[Image:Blue-footed booby.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Blue-footed booby]]The '''Galápagos Islands''' is an [[archipelago]] of 17 volcanic islands, situated in the [[Pacific Ocean]] 600 miles to the west of [[Ecuador]]. They are noted for their unique animal and bird life which led the naturalist [[Charles Darwin]] to formulate his [[Theory of Natural Selection]]. The name ''Galápagos'' derives from the [[Spain|Spanish]] word for saddle, as the shape of some of the indigenous species of [[tortoise]] resembled a saddle.

Their remote location meant that the islands had few visitors and almost all of the animals exhibit no natural fear of man. However, a rising population, the presence of feral pigs and goats, and the pressures of mass tourism have begun to threaten the existence of some species. On April 10, 2007 Rafael Correa Delgado the President of Ecuador issued an emergency decree<ref>[http://www.galapagos.org/news/04_2007_Decree.html] Presidential decree 4/10/2007</ref> calling for sustainable development.

The Galápagos Islands are a [[UNESCO]] World Heritage Site.<ref>[http://whc.unesco.org/en/list] UNESCO World Heritage List</ref>

==Geology==
The Galápagos Islands lie above a volcanic "hot spot" (similar to the Hawaiian Islands) where the Nazca and South American plates meet. The islands are essential the tip of giagantic shield volcano that rises up to 10000 ft above the ocean floor. As the plate moves eastwards, new volcanic cones are formed so that the eastern islands are much older and eroded than those to the west, which are still volcanically active<ref>[http://www.galapagosonline.com/nathistory/Geology/Geology.html] Galapagos Islands Geology</ref>.

==Darwin's Finches==
[[Image:Finch1.jpg|thumb|left|150px|One of Darwin's finches]]
[[Image:Finch2.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Another of Darwin's finches]]
Darwin collected many biological specimens during the [[Voyage of the Beagle]] (19831-1836), which included birds from the Galápagos Islands. These were presented to the Geological Society of London upon his return and the birds were handed to an ornithologist for classification. From the differences in the shapes of their beaks Darwin had assumed they were different types of bird (blackbirds, grosbeaks, finches) but the ornithologist classifed them as being different species of ground finch. Darwin surmised that, with little competition from other birds, individual varieties had evolved to fill ecological niches to utilise a wider range of food sources. When his journal<ref>[http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle] The Voyage of the Beagle</ref> was published in 1843, he included this knowledge, which has misled many to think that he had developed his Theory of Natural Selection during his journey.

Creationists claim that the different types of finch interbreed and are therefore not different species

==Tortoises==
[[Image:Tortoise.jpg|left|thumb|150px|Santa Cruz giant tortoise]]The larger Galápagos Islands are home to different types of giant tortoise. These were previously in great abundance numbering in the 100,000s, but with no native predators they had no natural defence mechanisms other than their hard shell. They became an easy food source for passing sailors who took them in great numbers to provide fresh meat during their journey. Owing to their smaller size the females were usually taken first as they were easier to handle. A full-grown male tortoise can weigh up to 500 lbs.

There were originally 15 different sub-species of tortoise, each found on a different island. The number of sub-species alive today is 11, the others having been rendered extinct by the combined actions of man and his imported animals<ref>Pigs, goats cows and horse ate the sparse vegetation on which the tortoises depended and crushed their eggs.</ref>. For the sub-species from Isla Pinta only one male specimen (thought to be 170 years old) survives. This is the famous "Lonesome George", who for over 30 years has refused to engage in a breeding program to try and maintain the sub-species. However, captive breeding of the other endagered sub-species has brough them back from the brink of extinction.<ref>[http://www.galapagosonline.com/nathistory/wildlife/animals/tortoise.htm]</ref>

[[Image:Marine iguana.jpg|left|thumb|150px|Marine iguana]]
[[Image:Land iguana.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Land iguana]]

==Other Animals==
The galapagos are home to two species of large iguana. The marine iguanas are unique in being the only aquatic lizard and feed on seaweed. They have developed mechanisms to help them cope with the salt water and can frequently be observed snorting salt from their nostrils.

[[Image:Masked boobies.jpg|left|thumb|150px|Masked boobies]]
[[Image:Galapagos hawk.jpg|right|thumb|150px|A juvenile Galápagos hawk]]
==Birds==
Although the Galápagos Islands lie just below the equator, a deep cold-water upwelling makes the waters around the islands extremely rich in sea-life. This provides a valuable food source for a wide range of sea birds. These include several species of boobies (blue-footed, red-footed and masked), waved albatross, [[frigatebird]]s, lava herons and the most northerly species of penguin. Inland lagoons support a colony of pink flamingoes. The Galápagos hawk is one of a few raptors that live on the islands.

==References==
<references/>

Petrel

2007-05-25T20:52:06Z

Totnesmartin: /* See also */ hyphen

The '''petrels''' and '''shearwaters''' are [[albatross]]-like [[birds]], although they are smaller than their more famous cousins, being [[gull]]-sized. they have long wings which help them fly great distances over the world's oceans. There are over 70 species. Some species are exceedingly common, with millions of individual birds, while other species are close to [[extinction]] for various reasons.

==Origin of the name==
The word "petrel" comes from the Latin name for the [[Christian]] [[Saint Peter]], and refers to the habits of some species to hover just above the ocean waves, with their feet barely touching the water, giving an appearance of walking on water.

==Species==
There are 24 species that visit [[North America]]n waters:
*'''[[Fulmarine Petrel]]s''':
* [[Northern Fulmar]]
* '''[[Gadfly Petrel]]s''':
* [[Black-capped Petrel]]
* [[Fea's Petrel]]
* [[Bermuda Petrel]] or Cahow
* [[Perald Petrel]]
* [[Hawaiian Petrel]]
* [[Murphy's Petrel]]
* [[Mottled Petrel]]
* [[Cook's Petrel]]
* [[Stejneger's Petrel]]
* '''[[Shearwater]]s''':
* [[Buller's Shearwater]]
* [[Streaked Shearwater]]
* [[Pink-footed Shearwater]]
* [[Black-vented Shearwater]]
* [[Wedge-tailed Shearwater]]
* [[Flesh-footed Shearwater]]
* [[Short-tailed Shearwater]]
* [[Sooty Shearwater]]
* [[Cory's Shearater]]
* [[Greater Shearwater]]
* [[Manx Shearwater]]
* [[Little Shearwater]]
* [[Audobon's Shearwater]]
* '''[[Procellariine Petrel]]s:
* [[Bulwer's Petrel]]
* '''[[Prion]]s''': no species recorded in the Northern Hemisphere.

==See also==
* [[Storm-Petrel]]

[[category:birds]]

Storm-Petrel

2007-05-25T20:51:43Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The '''Storm-Petrels''' are small to medium-sized [[seabirds]] related to [[Petrel]]s and [[Albatross]]es. There are nine species found in North American waters:
* [[Wilson's Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Band-rumped Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Leach's Storm-Petrel]]
* [[White-faced Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Black Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Ashy Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Least Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel]]
* [[Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel]]

{{stub}}
[[Category:Birds]]

Petrel

2007-05-25T20:37:50Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

Isle of Man

2007-05-25T19:53:45Z

Totnesmartin: yes

The '''Isle of Man''' is a substantial island in the Irish Sea, between [[Scotland]], [[England]], [[Wales]] and [[Ireland]]. The capital of the island is Douglas, and other major towns are Ramsey, Peel, Castletown and Port Erin. The central mountain of Snaefell is ascended by a light railway.

Access is generally via ferry from [[Belfast]], [[Dublin]], Heysham or [[Liverpool]], to Douglas, or by air to Ronaldsway, near Castletown from various British airports and Dublin.

A politically distinct entity from the rest of the [[United Kingdom]], it is the site of the oldest continuous [[parliament]] in the [[world]], the [[Tynwald]]. The Isle of Man is a socially conservative community and the judicial use of corporal punishment persisted here longer than in any other part of the [[British Isles]], the birch for juvenile offenders being employed until 1976.

The island flag depicts an ancient symbol called the ''triskelion'' or ''tre cassyn,'' consisting of three legs arranged in a swastika-like manner from a single central hub;<ref>[http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/im.html CRW Flags]</ref> a similar symbol is found on the flag of Sicily<ref>[http://www.fotw.net/flags/it-sic.html Flags of the World]</ref>
== Economy ==

*Historically, [[fishing]] has been an important island industry, notably for [[kipper]]s and [[scallop]]s. There are also a number of [[aquaculture|fish farms]] and important research into the captive breeding of [[turbot]]s was carried out at the laboratory at Port Erin.

*Inland, [[sheep]] farming and localised forestry take place.

*The modern Isle of Man is an important [[tax haven]], and hosts a number of sizeable banking and financial operations. In recent years the island has invested in state-of-the-art communications infrastructure to support this sector. <ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/25/isle_of_man/</ref>

*Tourism is also important, especially at the time of the annual [[Isle of Man TT Races|TT Races]], when the island is invaded by thousands of motorcyclists.

*[[Gambling]] is legal, and there are several major casinos in Douglas.

*Manx [[cat]]s, a distinctive tailless breed originated here from [[inbreeding]], and are now coveted pets and show [[animal]]s worldwide.

* The island is also well known for the annual [[Isle of man TT race|TT]] (Tourist trophy) [[motorcycle]] race.

== Wildlife ==

The Calf of Man, a small island at the southern end of the Isle of Man is a nature reserve and [[bird observatory]]. Notable island wildlife includes [[basking shark]]s, [[seal]]s, [[porpoise]]s, [[raven]]s, [[chough]]s, and large seabird colonies. The [[Manx shearwater]] is named for the island, although today it is rare here.

== References ==
<references />

[http://www.isle-of-man.com/index.shtml Isle of Man guide]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Man, Isle of}}
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Islands]]

Grebe

2007-05-25T19:47:58Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

'''Grebes''' are freshwater birds found throughout the world, with 20 [[species]] on six continents.
==Description==
Grebes range in size from 11 to 32 inches. Their feet are set so far back on their bodies that they find walking difficult, and usually prefer to swim. They are often seen swimming with their necks held erect. Their feet are curious for having wide lobes, which help in paddling. Grebes have a layer of soft, downy [[feather]]s under their nomal feathers. They swallow these feathers when [[preening]], and feed them to their young. It is not known why they do this.

Grebes are poor fliers and will usually dive to safety instead of taking off.

==North American Grebes==
* [[Horned Grebe]] - Breeds mainly in [[Canada]] and winters in the south-eastern [[United States]] and [[California]]
* [[Eared Grebe]] - Breeds west of the [[Rocky mountains]], but not as far as the pacific coast; winters in [[Mexico]] and the four states bordering.
* [[Pied-billed Grebe]] - Breeds in the mainland United States and Mexico.
* [[Least Grebe]] - the smallest of the family, its range stretches north to southern [[Texas]].
* [[Red-necked Grebe]] - Breeds in [[canada]] anbd winters on the coast as far south as california and [[Virginia]].
* [[Clark's Grebe]] - Breeds west of the Rocky mountains, wintering in California, Mexico, [[New Mexico]] and Texas.
* [[Western Grebe]] - Breeds west of the [[Mississippi river]], and winters on the Pacific coast.

==Source==
''The National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America'' (Natioinal Geographic Society 2002)

[[category:birds]]

Loon

2007-05-25T19:21:57Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The '''Loon''' is a large water bird on the [[Northern hemisphere]]. Of the five [[species]], four live in [[North America]], while one is an occasional visitor to [[Alaska]].

Loons range in size between 25 and 34 inches long. They are normally grey or brown, except in the breeding season when the [[male]]s of most species will sport feathers of deep black, flecked with white.

They mostly eat fish, and build their nests on the edge of the water, usually inland.

the cry of the Loon in summer is often cited as a representative feature of the far north.[http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/loons.php]

==Species of Loon==
* [[Red-throated Loon]] - the smallest species; the male has a red throat in the breeding season.
* [[Pacific Loon]]
* [[Arctic Loon]] - not normally resident in North America, but it sometimes breeds in Alaska.
* [[Common Loon]] - this species can be heard year round; the inly species to spend the winter far inland, in the south-eastern United states.
* [[Yellow-billed Loon]] - The largest species, and the most northerly, nesting only in [[Arctic]] areas of [[Siberia]], Alaska and [[Canada]].

==Source==
''The National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America''. (National Geographic Society 2002)

Albatross

2007-05-25T18:22:05Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

'''Albatrosses''' are large [[seabird]]s, normally found far out in the ocean. they use their very long wings to glide just above the waves, occasionally catching [[fish]] and [[squid]]. Albatrosses make their nests in large colonies on remote islands. they mate for life.

==Types of albatross==
Scientists disagree about how many species of abatross exist; between thirtenn and twenty-four have been proposed. however, some species have become well known, including the [[Wandering Albatross]], sometimes said to have the longest wingspan of any bird - up to twelve feet.

Six species of albatross are known in american waters:
* [[Short-tailed Albatross]] - breeds off [[Japan]]; now down to about 1,000 individuals. it can be seen off the [[Pacific]] coast
* [[Shy Albatross]] - can be seen from [[Washington state]] to [[California]].
* [[Laysan Albatross]] - breeds in [[hawaii]], but also seen off the western mainland.
* [[Black-footed Albatross]] -also breeds in hawaii, but can be seen every year off the western mainland.
* [[Yellow-nosed Albatross]] - a rare visitor to the [[atlantic]] and [[Gulf of Mexico|Gulf]] coast, probably from nesting sites in [[Tristan da Cunha]] island.
* [[Black-browed Albatross]] - a very rare visitor to American waters, but has been seen in [[Europe]]an waters several times.
==Albatrosses in legend==
The albatross is well-known for its role in [[superstition]]. Albatrosses often follow ships, and wre believed to be the souls of drowned sailors. it was considered to be bad luck to kill one. In [[Samuel Taylor Coleridge]]'s epic poem ''[[The Rime of the Ancient Mariner]]'', the mariner of the title tells a tale of the grim consequences of killing one of the birds.

In 1959 the crew of the ship ''Calpean Star'', docked at [[Liverpool]], refused to continue their voyage after they blamed on-board accidents on an albatross in the cargo, which was being taken to a zoo.

==Sources==
* ''The National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America'' (National Geographic Society 2002)
* [http://www.kcc.org.nz/birds/albatross.asp Albatross facts]
* [http://www.doghause.com/superstitions.asp The Albatross in superstition]

[[category:birds]]

Penguin

2007-05-25T17:41:08Z

Totnesmartin: Emperor penguin link

[[Image:Emperor penguins.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Emperor penguins.]]
A number of kinds of flightless seabirds found in the southern hemisphere, '''penguins''' are actively swimming predators, feeding on [[fish]] and [[squid]]. Adelie penguins have been recorded diving to depths of over 2,000 feet.

In addition to the huge colonies found on many islands of the sub-Antarctic, penguins are found in [[New Zealand]], [[Australia]], [[South Africa]], and continental South America. The most northerly variety is the [[Galapagos]] penguin.

The largest type is the [[Emperor penguin]] which nests on the [[Antarctica|Antarctic]] continent, which grows up to four feet tall, but remains of [[fossil]] penguins as tall as a man have been found.

Penguins normally have very sleek feathers designed to allow them to swim very fast. King Penguin chicks, however, do not need to swim as their parents fetch all their food for them. What they do need is to keep warm, so their feathers are brown and woolly, not at all like their adult feathers. For this reason, early antarctic explorers wrongly decided that they were a separate species from their parents and christened them "woolly penguins". <ref>http://www.siec.k12.in.us/~west/proj/penguins/king.html</ref>

Penguins are eaten at sea by leopard seals and [[killer whale]]s, and on land can fall prey to Antarctic [[skua]]s and feral [[cat]]s. Historically they were commercially processed into oil by enterprises on numerous sub-Antarctic islands.

==Penguin mating habits==

Emperor Penguins are only faithful to their mate for the length of the breeding season. This is necessary, as it requires the undivided attention of both parents to raise a chick in such a hostile environment. However, once the breeding season is over, as few as 15% remain with the same breeding partner and, at times, this rate of fidelity can even drop as low as 5%.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0819_050819_march_penguins_2.html</ref>

Roy and Silo, two male birds in the penguin enclosure at New York's Central Park Zoo, built a nest, incubated an egg, and successfully raised a chick. They exhibited courting behaviour, built a nest together, and ignored all the advances from female penguins. When keepers gave them a fake egg to look after, they behaved like model parents. So, when another breeding pair stopped looking after one of their eggs, the keepers gave it to Roy and Silo who successfully hatched it and raised a chick called Tango. However, the following season Silo left Roy and mated with a female penguin named Scrappy who'd just transferred in from Sea World Zoo in San Diego. <ref> http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=164</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]

Kinkajou

2007-05-25T17:38:48Z

Totnesmartin: rainforest --> rain forest

[[Image:kinkajou.gif|right]]

The Kinkajou (Potos flavus), also known as the Honey Bear, is a nocturnal rainforest mammal related to the [[ringtail]], [[raccoon]], and the [[lesser panda]]. It is the only member of the genus Potos. Although they are a member of the order [[Carnivora]], they eat mostly [[fruit]], and are mostly awake at night ([[nocturnal]]). They are currently on the [[endangered species]] list. Kinkajous have been captured and bred in domestic environments, though they do not make hospitable [[pet]]s. They are native to [[Central America|Central]] and [[South America]], and live primarily in the [[rain forest]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Carnivores]]

Cassowary

2007-05-25T17:37:57Z

Totnesmartin: rainforest --> rain forest

The '''cassowaries''' are large, flightless [[bird]]s similar to the [[emu]] and [[ostrich]]. They live in the [[rain forest]]s of [[Australia]] and [[New Guinea]]. There are three [[species]]:

* [[Dwarf cassowary]] (sometimes called "Bennet's cassowary" - This is the smallest species, and is found in New Guinea and [[New Britain]] (an island north of New Guinea).
* [[Northern cassowary]] - found in New Guinea.
* [[Southern cassowary]] - found in Australia and New Guinea.

==Description==
Cassowaries, due to their shyness and forest [[habitat]], are difficult to observe. However, it is known that they grow up to 5 or 6 feet high, with the [[male]]s being larger than the [[female]]s. they eat mainly fruit, although [[fungi]] and small [[animal]]s are also sometimes eaten.

Cassowaries are dangerous if cornered; their kick can cause severe [[injury]] or even death.

[[category:birds]]

Cassowary

2007-05-25T17:36:22Z

Totnesmartin: New bird article

The '''cassowaries''' are large, flightless [[bird]]s similar to the [[emu]] and [[ostrich]]. They live in the [[rainforest]]s of [[Australia]] and [[New Guinea]]. There are three [[species]]:

* [[Dwarf cassowary]] (sometimes called "Bennet's cassowary" - This is the smallest species, and is found in New Guinea and [[New Britain]] (an island north of New Guinea).
* [[Northern cassowary]] - found in New Guinea.
* [[Southern cassowary]] - found in Australia and New Guinea.

==Description==
Cassowaries, due to their shyness and forest [[habitat]], are difficult to observe. However, it is known that they grow up to 5 or 6 feet high, with the [[male]]s being larger than the [[female]]s. they eat mainly fruit, although [[fungi]] and small [[animal]]s are also sometimes eaten.

Cassowaries are dangerous if cornered; their kick can cause severe [[injury]] or even death.

[[category:birds]]

Emu

2007-05-25T17:22:45Z

Totnesmartin: better link

[[Image:emu.jpg|right]]
'''Emus''' are large flightless [[bird]]s similar to small [[ostrich]]s. Emus are native to [[Australia]] where they eat [[seed]]s, [[insects]], and [[shrub]]s.

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], emus, like all flightless non [[aquatic]] birds, originated in the [[Middle East]] and are the descendants of the two emus that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]].
Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, emus bred from the Ark passengers then [[migrate]]d to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ag1">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Answers In Genesis</ref> -- as it is thought that Australia was still for a time after the Flood connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of [[vegetation]] torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ag1"/>
The [[theory]] that [[God]] simply generated emus into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-[[Bible|Biblical]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Rhea

2007-05-25T17:21:28Z

Totnesmartin: New article about the rhea

The '''rhea''' is a large flightless [[bird]] found on the [[pampas]] (plains) of [[South America]]. It is similar to the [[ostrich]] but is slightly smaller. The female rhea is a prolific egg-layer, and may lay up to sixty eggs in a year.

==Types of rhea==
There are two [[species]] of rhea. The common (or greater) rhea is the better known of the two species, and is described above. The [[Darwin's rhea]] is much smaller, and lives in the [[Andes]] mountains above 12,000 feet. It is an [[endangered species]].

==Rheas as food==
A few rhea farms exist in the [[United States]], and the meat is prized for its healthy qualities, as it is very lean.

==Source==
* [http://www.eggcrazy.com/rheainfo.html information on rheas and rhea farming]

[[Category:birds]]

Ostrich

2007-05-25T17:09:11Z

Totnesmartin: Ostriches in Job and Leviticus

[[Image:ostrich.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
The '''Ostrich''' is the largest and heaviest living [[bird]]. It is a flightless bird, which can never take to the skies, instead establishing itself for running. Its long, strong and efficient legs can cover large distances without much effort, and its feet have only two [[toe]]s for larger speed. Ostriches can burst into short impacts up to 43 miles per hour sprinting, and they know a constant speed of 31 miles per hour maintained. A straight one of an Ostrich can be 10 to 16 feet longer than many others. If danger threatens, ostriches can escape quite easily, by running away. They can defend themselves also: they have a 4-inch grip talon on each foot, and their efficient impact is enough to kill a lion. Though ostriches cannot fly, they do possess wings. Ostriches hold their wings out to adjust and help them run, particularly when suddenly changing direction. Their main use, although, God provides, is for communication while hopping around. To assert itself, the ostrich holds its head up straight and raises its wings and end feathers. In subordination, an ostrich will sink its head, with its wings and end feathers down. During the mating season, the black-and-white male uses his drastic color, in order to attract the light brown female. It sinks slowly to soil, nearly, bending its neck, and begins making a wavelike movement and shaking, starting with first one wing, then the other with its end feathers. The male then rises and moves toward the female, holding out its wings to continue impressing her. If she approves, mating commences.

The feathers of the ostrich are different than many other birds. They are soft, smooth, and loose. Because they do not all fold in the same direction, ostriches have a "shaggy" appearance. Their feathers may become soaked in the rain, and this is fine since ostriches have a special gland which produces oils for the feathers' resistance to rain. Ostriches may live in large herds, to help with their defense from predators. With their tall height and sharp sight they can see long distances. Thus, in a group, one is likely to see danger coming. Ostriches sometimes move in large groups of 100 or more, but most groups are smaller, normally approximately 10 birds or a straight male and female pair. The groups have a pecking order, with a dominating male, who patrols and defends an area and a dominating female, called the "main hen," who unites other females. Lonely males may come and go during the mating season. While nesting, the alpha hen while mate with the territorial male, and they divide the tasks of sitting on the eggs to the rest of the ostriches. The other females may mate with the same male or other males, but will keep their eggs in the same nest as the alpha couple. The main hen will lay her eggs in the center of the nest, in order to guarantee that they have the best probability of surviving, but many of other eggs will fit in the nest. Normally the main hen will sit on the nest during the day, then the male takes over and broods during the night. Some days after the eggs have hatched, they leave the nest, and begin scratching in the soil under the supervision of their parents. The adults will protect them under their wings, and protect them against sun and rain, and against [[carnivore]]s. Contrary to popular belief, ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand. If an ostrich is in danger but cannot run away, it may bring its head close to the ground. From a distance it appears that the ostrich has buried its head in the sand, because only the body is visible.

Ostriches eat mostly plants, particularly roots, grass and seeds, but they also munch on [[insect]]s such as [[grasshopper]]s and small animals such as [[lizard]]s. When an ostrich eats, food is collected in the top of the throat, until there is a large enough lump to push down the chunk of food. Ostriches eat many things which other animals cannot digest. They have remarkably durable 46 foot long intestines used to absorb as many nutrients as possible. These large birds will eat sand, bark and small stones, which help to grind up food in their muscular [[stomach]]es. Ostriches do not need to drink water since they receive, which they need primarily from plants, although they will drink, if they come to a river. They have also a special way of raising their underwings on the hot days, in order to reduce loss of [[water]].

==In the Bible==
The [[Bible]] mentions ostriches several times. [[Leviticus]] 11:13 states that is unclean and should not be eaten; Several verses[[Job]] 39 describe the bird as laying "her eggs in the earth, and warm[ing] them in dust", going on to describe the ostrich as neglectful of its young (Job 39:14-17). however the chapter goes on to say that the ostrich at full speed "scorneth the horse and rider" - it cannot be outrun. (39:18)

[[Category:Birds]]

Bristol

2007-05-25T16:53:39Z

Totnesmartin: /* Sport */ spelling

Whilst there are a number of large and attractive Bristols in the [[USA]] (the largest being in [[Connecticut]]), the most sizeable and oldest city called Bristol is in [[England]] - it is the sixth largest city in England in terms of population, and the largest in the [[West country]], with a population of over 400,000.

==History==
In [[medieval]] times it was one of the most important [[port]] cities in England, and in the 18th century a significant centre of the [[slave]] trade.

In [[1497]] [[John Cabot]] sailed from Bristol and accidentally discovered [[Newfoundland]].

In the 19th century Bristol lost its maritime significance, since the larger ships coming into use could no longer navigate the several miles of river required to reach its docks.

Bristol owes much to its association with [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]], the engineer who designed the [[Clifton Suspension Bridge]], the [[SS Great Britain]] and [[Temple Meads Station]].

==Sport==
Bristol RFC is one of England's largest [[Rugby Union]] clubs, with the mojority of its recent history spent in the top flight of the English league. The city is also home to two professional football (soccer) clubs - Bristol Rovers FC and Bristol City FC.

==Education==
It is now the location of a prestigious university.

{{stub}}
[[Category:UK Towns and Cities]]

Bristol

2007-05-25T16:53:18Z

Totnesmartin: /* History */ 1497, +Newfoundland discovered accidentally

Whilst there are a number of large and attractive Bristols in the [[USA]] (the largest being in [[Connecticut]]), the most sizeable and oldest city called Bristol is in [[England]] - it is the sixth largest city in England in terms of population, and the largest in the [[West country]], with a population of over 400,000.

==History==
In [[medieval]] times it was one of the most important [[port]] cities in England, and in the 18th century a significant centre of the [[slave]] trade.

In [[1497]] [[John Cabot]] sailed from Bristol and accidentally discovered [[Newfoundland]].

In the 19th century Bristol lost its maritime significance, since the larger ships coming into use could no longer navigate the several miles of river required to reach its docks.

Bristol owes much to its association with [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]], the engineer who designed the [[Clifton Suspension Bridge]], the [[SS Great Britain]] and [[Temple Meads Station]].

==Sport==
Bristol RFC is one of England's largest [[Ruby Union]] clubs, with the mojority of its recent history spent in the top flight of the English league. The city is also home to two professional football (soccer) clubs - Bristol Rovers FC and Bristol City FC.

==Education==
It is now the location of a prestigious university.

{{stub}}
[[Category:UK Towns and Cities]]

Bristol

2007-05-25T11:48:31Z

Totnesmartin: Rugby, +geographical items, +sections

Whilst there are a number of large and attractive Bristols in the [[USA]] (the largest being in [[Connecticut]]), the most sizeable and oldest city called Bristol is in [[England]] - it is the sixth largest city in England in terms of population, and the largest in the [[West country]], with a population of over 400,000.

==History==
In [[medieval]] times it was one of the most important port cities in England, and in the 18th century a significant centre of the [[slave]] trade.

[[John Cabot]] sailed from Bristol to discover [[Newfoundland]].

In the 19th century Bristol lost its maritime significance, since the larger ships coming into use could no longer navigate the several miles of river required to reach its docks.

Bristol owes much to its association with [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]], the engineer who designed the [[Clifton Suspension Bridge]], the [[SS Great Britain]] and [[Temple Meads Station]].

==Sport==
Bristol RFC is one of England's largest [[Ruby Union]] clubs, with the mojority of its recent history spent in the top flight of the English league. The city is also home to two professional football (soccer) clubs - Bristol Rovers FC and Bristol City FC.

==Education==
It is now the location of a prestigious university.

{{stub}}
[[Category:UK Towns and Cities]]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-05-16T23:27:37Z

Totnesmartin: sections

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-05-16T23:25:49Z

Totnesmartin: What went wrong?

i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-05-16T23:23:47Z

Totnesmartin: /* Dead links */

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-05-16T23:21:20Z

Totnesmartin: /* Feline Intelligence */ reversal

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-05-16T22:41:04Z

Totnesmartin: /* No */ an example article is held up to the light

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

==No==
I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized

2007-05-16T22:00:32Z

Totnesmartin: /* Comments */ a question about the question

I believe America was polarized, unintentionally, but I don't believe Bush was the culprit. My theory is that either the Republican congress of the 1990's or Democrat President Bill Clinton is to blame. Maybe neither, maybe I am wrong. I'll be waiting for your reply.

(1) Republicans in congress so harassed Bill Clinton that America got entrenched to two camps, Left and Right of center.

(2) Bill Clinton throwing out Right wingers, as attacking me, when he probally should have stepped down.

'00 elections were so narrow, both camps claim Presidency.

The seeds of polarization were laid before we were attacked on 9/11.
Initially, we put our differences aside and supported the President.
Some reverted back to their camps right after the Axis of Evil speech of '02.
As time passed, certain high profile people came out against Bush and against his Iraq policy.
This became a loud drum rally for the left and right, all that came together after the shock of 9/11 was wiped out.

If I am wrong, then this is what happened. Democrats, in charge for decades, found their parties livelyhood threatened by not owning any power. The loss of Presidency, both congresses, many governorships, all branches and then the Supreme Court- they were determined to take back power at any cost. That cost democracy dearly.--jp 00:10, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==

I"m guessing you're a teenager, so you probably don't remember Newt Gingrich and Co's very organized, very determined, and very successful efforts to make "liberal" a cussword back in the '90's. --Gulik2 13:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, that aspersion upon the word dates to the Reagan years, at least this go-round. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, wrong generation. I do remember the 1990's and a very organized, polarizing, democrat led institutions taking over- namely: NOW, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and Teachers Union. They now own the rights to the Democrat name.--jp 14:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Just sayin'--if you guys didn't insist upon treating "Liberal" as a synonym for "Child-molesting Bolshevik Satanist", maybe you'd have a slightly easier time finding common ground. And why is it always "Democrat" and not "Democratic"? --14:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Who are you calling 'You' guys, just pretending I'm offended. Why do Democrats call themselves 'Dems' instead of 'crats'?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==A question about the question==
Isn't "placing the blame" itself a polarising act? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-05-16T21:48:28Z

Totnesmartin: my ha'porth

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

:I think it does, if private schools in Britain are anything to go by: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1589948,00.html] (please note - a "fag" in these schools is a junior boy who is a servant of a senior boy, running errands and so on. Nothing to do with "fag" meaning "a homosexual".) [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
==No==

No, single sex schooling doesn't promote homesexuality. '''Home schooling''' promotes homesexuality. --[[User:Frenchfries|Frenchfries]] 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How does home schooling promote homosexuality? -Lauren

::I think it's a joke. The article title contains an amusing spelling error. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Which I have changed to [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.
:Which begs the question, why was it there in the first place, if its only purpose was to be tempation. Obviously we were meant to fail, for if any other outcome was expected the tree didn't need to exist. It is a representation of tempation that is nigh impossible to resist. Similarly, if we house teenage males, only with other males, they will feel a temptation to have sexual relations with other males. Whether or not they act upon such temptation is up to them. However, they will feel a similar temptation regardless of surrounding. So, are we saying the pre-marital sex with a girl is better than sex with a boy? --[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Single sex schooling, you aren't serious. If you told me that liberal teaching promotes homosexuality, I would have to say hell yes it does. Not only does it promote but encourage such thoughts. Animals do it? WTF? So it is ok for humans? Boy, America is so messed up.*** Thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuals were looked at as deranged individuals. Now, our generation is so smart, smirk. Eventually, the homosexual movement will die out without reproduction. But at the same time, we must not let our youth be indoctrinated to this evil.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: Heterosexual couples have homosexual children, thus reproduction of homosexuals in independent of homosexuals themselves.--[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:<nowiki>***</nowiki>Humans are animals. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:You should know that you just argued in favour of evolution. Not only that, but you have defied reason, as there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Fortunately for us, our generation is so smart, that eventually the conservative movement will die out without reproduction. Nobody wants to marry a bigot. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Let me be clear, I never endorsed the notion that homosexuality is genetic nor evolution is responsible. If you read into what I wrote, this is a learned lifestyle. At 7 years old, the age of reason, you don't suddenly say- I'm gay, it is learned. Break the education factor, you are left with non reproducing lifestyle. Slowly fading away is not evolution but the result of no reproduction. Let me say this also, I do not proclaim to the absolute notion that stopping indoctrinating youth will ever happen. Thereby homosexuality will continue. As long as these people have rights, the promotion continues. As long as they are allowed to adopt children, the indoctrination continues. Just as it survived underground since times inception from our fall into sin, it will always be with us.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'd be interested to see a citation from where you're getting "you don't just decide that you're gay at 7 years old", because Dateline says different. I'll go pull up some citations of kids outing themselves as "gay" at extremely young ages. On a side note, jp, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Dateline, please. If they are outing themselves it is from learning it. Conservatives understand that homosexuality is a sin against God. Bigotry will always be with us as well. Conservatives are not bigoted because they dislike homosexuality. The gay movement is not a protected civil right. We love the sinner, we hate the sin. We love the gay person, we hate the gay agenda. The only bigotry displayed is against the conservative view.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Way to completely change the subject and go on a rant. Anyways, [http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/04/05/ae/today/c2a3b8536c55f8c2852572b4000d0511.txt here] is one I pulled up. 3 straight children, 1 bi.
:::::: You can find articles all day long that prove your views are just. Let me tell you there are plenty of other websites where your view is accepted. Why don't you post on a liberal website. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. And you're still dodging the question, does SSS promote homosexuality? You never answered the question. I said no; I think you probably would say "yes"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Chong, figure it out, what does learned mean?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. Not from what I read about you. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse#ACLU_and_Evolution --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that it's not because it's accepted that it exists. I grew up very conservative, and I always had issues with homosexuality. Of course, because I thought it was wrong I hated myself for looking at other males. Since that time I've found myself, and am a much better person. The mind, like a book, works best when open. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It isn't a sin because God made you that way. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2007-05-16T20:58:34Z

Totnesmartin: some other reasons

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-05-16T20:55:29Z

Totnesmartin: /* Traditional Paradox of God */ which way is up

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-05-16T20:19:54Z

Totnesmartin: /* Yes */ Matthew and John

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]
:[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] - Matthew and John part of the 12? [[Matthew the Apostle]] is only ''traditionally'' [[Matthew the Evangelist]] - modern biblical scholarship seems to disagree on this point. [[John]] wasn't an Apostle at all. Please check your Bible before citing it, otherwise mistakes may occur. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

Talk:Africa

2007-05-16T19:38:26Z

Totnesmartin: /* Garden of Eden location? */ depends who said it

==Come On People==

Africa is South-EAST of Asia? That's been in this entry since November of last year? This does not make me think highly of this site.

'''Trring to justify colonialism'''

I have a hard time understanding why contributors to this page a trying to put a pretty face on the colonial episode - thrying to paint abusive labor practices as thouh they gave "idle Africans" something to do and a wage, when none of the proceeds went to the benefit of the people whose land it was before the Euros pushed them off it. Colonialism was and remains evil and went against basic conservative ideas like freedom of ownership, control of one's own property and controlling one's own economic destiny. -Sevenstring

==Garden of Eden location?==

I heard Eden was in Iraq, probably.... claim is in Ethiopia seems false [[User:ChineseChristian|ChineseChristian]] 03:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, most claims about the location of [[Eden]] base it in the Iraq/Iran/Eastern Turkey area. Still, The claim should stand if it was made by some authoritative person or body, rather than by (eg) the Ethiopian Tourism department!

Talk:Loch Ness Monster

2007-05-16T19:15:38Z

Totnesmartin: /* Article needs total re-work */ agree

== This statement need attributions if it is true. I personally doubt there has been a survey ==

It is considered by most to be a legendary hoax. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

TWO WORDS: "Tree fiddy" --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article needs total re-work==

This article has no sourced claims, and gives way to much weight to theories that there really IS a creature. In desperate need of qualification and skepticism. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed. Nessie exists as much as Sasquatch or the Abominable Snowman From what I've seen/read, Nessie was a hoax from day one. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 16:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::Although I personally believe in Nessie, I agree there's no direct proof, and the article should reflect that. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Loch Ness Monster

2007-05-16T19:13:10Z

Totnesmartin: is -->might be (no proof either that nessie exists or is a plesiosaur)

The '''Loch Ness monster''', also known as Nessie, is a well known [[cryptid]] claimed to live in [[Loch Ness]], a large lake in Scotland. Since 1933 Nessie sightings have been regularly reported.

==Theories==

There are numerous theories to explain the reported sightings of the monster,
but each one has its problems. Undoubtedly the favorite theory of Nessie enthusiasts is the [[plesiosaur]]. The idea that it's merely a legend or hoax is far less appealing.

===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 might be. 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 with their confirmation as hoaxes they cannot be used as evidence. Plesiosaurs are generally believed to have died off approximately 70 million years ago, and while the survival of ''Coelocanth'' gives hope to cryptozoologists, the difficulties of a large, air-breathing reptile never being decisively spotted seem to speak against the possibility of a surviving plesiosaur. In addition, especially for as large a creature as a plesiosaur, the relative dearth of fish in Loch Ness would speak against the capability for supporting an isolated population of large animals.

Besides the hoax photograph, the plesiosaur theory has other problems. Loch Ness was created by glaciation, and the plesiosaur fossil evidence suggests that they lived in warm shallow seas. If Nessie was a plesiosaur, it would mean that a breeding population of cold-blooded reptiles survived for millions of years past the last evidence of their existence, swam in to the retreating cold glacial waters surrounding Scotland, and became trapped in the loch.<ref>http://www.loch-ness.org/candidates.html</ref>

===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 [[basilosaurus]], is considered to be another likely candidate for the Loch Ness monster by believers. It is a long, slender, fairly serpentine whale, which is believed to have died out long ago, but a few could conceivably have survived to 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 explanations==

===Trees===
The most likely explanation for many of the sightings was described in [[New Scientist]] as a rotting tree. As sunken trees rot they release a gas that could rise to the top of the surface, the trunk and branches of such trees resemble what many of the sightings claim to see. <ref>“The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113.</ref>

===Boat wakes===
Due to the shape of the lake, boat wakes in can create large standing waves that appear to rise above the lake. These elongated shapes might explain many of the sightings. <ref>http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff/s-araya/currents.htm#Internal%20progressive%20waves</ref>

==History of alleged 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]].

===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 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:Scottish Flora and Fauna]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]
[[Category:Cryptids]]

Talk:Martin Luther King

2007-05-16T19:07:35Z

Totnesmartin: /* Reason for editing */ two possible reasons

Too bad this page is protected. There's nothing here about his extramarital affairs, his plagiarism, or his support for socialism. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 04:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh good God in Heaven, are you trying to discredit Martin Luther King Jr.? The man is an American ICON. Thats like trying to discredit JFK or Lincoln. I think every city has a street named after MLK.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::He's an icon for liberals and Negroes, not for all Americans. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 04:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, if you wanna hate the man according to your twisted beliefs, be my guest. Btw, since when is Socialism a vice?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I never said I hated him. There's a big gap between "He's not my icon" and "I hate him". And if you don't know what's bad about socialism, you're at the wrong website. Even liberal Wikipedia allows criticism of MLK in their article, it's pretty ironic that a conservative encyclopedia just tells what a great guy he was and then locks the page. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 04:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I asked since when was socialism a vice? It may not work well, but that doesn't make it bad. I think that if you wanna add that stuff, you have a right to do so. I'm just stating that I don't think that his human errors will affect my feelings about those things that he did positive for this country.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Gee, thanks for giving me your permission. Unfortunately the page is still locked. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 04:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I'm not giving permission. I'm expressing beliefs. If you wanna edit it, you'll have to petition Andy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Give me a break. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is what scares me about history. A man is subject to be picked apart for every action he takes, despite the fact we are just humans at the end of the day.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Reason for editing ==

I'm new to CP, but WP also gives a reason why the article is locked. What's the reason here? --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 11:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was linked to the front page (which always makes an article a target) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King&diff=84537&oldid=84533 according to the edit history]. Further back in the edit history is another reason why pages get protected, but don't look if you're easily offended. Or even not-so easily... :( [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 15:07, 16 May 2007 (EDT)