Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Predator

2007-05-23T02:54:16Z

TylerD.: New page: A '''Predator''' is an animal that prays on other animals, which is basically the same thing as a carnivore. Animals that are not predators are called prey or herbivores. S...

A '''Predator''' is an [[animal]] that prays on other animals, which is basically the same thing as a [[carnivore]]. Animals that are not predators are called [[prey]] or [[herbivore]]s. Some common predatory animals include [[bears]], [[lion]]s, and [[shark]]s.

[[The Bible]] teaches us ([[Job]] 40:15) that before their Expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]], all animals were [[herbivore]]s, and there were no predators. This is born out by the [[fossil record]].[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/dinosaurs.html][http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/flood/june99.html]

::"I give every green plant for food" —[[God]], [[Genesis]] 1:30

Maiden name

2007-05-23T02:46:28Z

TylerD.: New page: A '''maiden name''' is the name that a girl has, before she gets married and becomes a woman. For example, the maiden name of Hilary Clinton (before she married fo...

A '''maiden name''' is the name that a [[girl]] has, before she gets [[marriage|married]] and becomes a [[woman]]. For example, the maiden name of [[Hilary Clinton]] (before she married former [[President]] [[Bill Clinton]]) was [[Hilary Rodham]].

In some other cultures, such as the [[Hispanic]] culture, women do not take their hudband's name. Instead, the [[child]] gets his mother's name and one of his fathers' names, as in "Gabriel Garcia Lorca", whose mother was named Garcia and whose father was named Lorca, or vice versa.

Animal kingdom

2007-05-23T02:41:21Z

TylerD.:

The Kindom Animalia is a division of life that includes all the organisms that are classified as animals. They tend to have a multi-cellular structure. They consume other organic tissue to feed themselves. They are responsive to outside stimulus. They are motile durring some stage of life. Unlike plants, they do not have a cell wall.

The Animal Kingdom has the largest number of organisms yet recorded. It includes sponges, worms, insects, birds, mammals, crustations, as well as humans.

The '''Animal Kingdom''' is one of the five [[kingdom]]s in [[evolution]]ary [[biology|biological]] science. The other four kingdoms are

*[[Plant]]s, not including [[fungi]] -- the Kingdom Plantae
*Mushrooms and other [[fungus]] -- the Kingdom Fungi
*Eukaryotic organisms that do not fall under the other eukaryotic kingdoms, animalia, plantae, and fungi -- the Kingdom [[Protista]]
*[[Bacteria]] and other prokaryotic organisms -- the Kingdom [[Monera]]

There is also the Protist Kingdom, that is everything else in [[God]]'s [[Creation]] that doesn't fit into a category. Protists, which come next to the Moneral on charts, are sometimes referred to as the "magic" kingdom.[http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-60518.html]

==See also==
*[[Baramin]]
*[[Species]]

[[Category:Biology]]

ASPCA

2007-05-23T02:38:42Z

TylerD.:

The [[ASPCA]], or '''American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals''', is an [[animal rights]] organization. An example of their contributions are often seen at the end of a movie when it says, "'''No animals were harmed in the creation of this movie'''."

Their website states that they were formed "to alleviate the injustices animals faced then, and we continue to battle cruelty today. Whether it’s saving a pet who has been accidentally poisoned, fighting to pass humane laws, rescuing animals from abuse or sharing resources with shelters across the country, we work toward the day in which no animal will live in pain or fear."<ref>http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home</ref>

In recent years, the ASPCA has dropped the first "A" (for "American") from its name, ostensibly to show that it is a worldwide organization.

==See also==
*[[American Humane Society]], which has likewise dropped the "A" recently
*[[ACLU]]

==References==
<references/>

Ark of the Old Covenant

2007-05-15T07:27:12Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to Ark of the Covenant

#REDIRECT [[Ark of the Covenant]]

Acacia

2007-05-15T07:26:52Z

TylerD.: new article

'''Acacia wood''' is a kind of [[tree]] found in the Middle East and other places. It was a poplar building and construction material in [[Biblical]] times. Both the [[Ark of the Old Covenant]] and [[Noah's Ark]] were made wholely or partly out of acacia wood.

Despite its Biblical origins, the acacia tree is sometimes associated with unsavory connotations. It is used as a symbol in [[Freemasonry]][http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/sof/sof30.htm][http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp], and its bark can be used to produce [[hallucinogen]]ic [[drugs]] such as [[DMT]] and [[PCP]].

[[Category:Trees]]

Ark of the Covenant

2007-05-15T07:16:03Z

TylerD.: see also Noah's Ark

The '''Ark of the Covenant''' is actually two items, the Ark of the Old Covenant and the Ark of the New Covenant.

==Old Covenant==

The Ark of the Old Covenant was a sacred ark which the [[Ten Commandments]] and a jar of [[manna]] were kept in. It is described in detail in [[God]]'s instructions on making it in [[Exodus]] 25:9-22: <blockquote>"Have them make a chest of [[acacia]] wood—two and a half [[cubit]]s long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure [[gold]], both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold [[ring]]s for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the [[Testimony]], which I will give you.
Make an [[atone]]ment cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two [[cherub]]im out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites."</blockquote>

===Dangers associated with the Ark of the Old Covenant===
The ark was very dangerous. [[Uzzah]] was killed for touching the ark (since he was not of the Priestly order), and 50,760 citizens of [[Beth-shemesh]] were killed by God because some of them looked inside it. In the [[Indiana Jones]] film, [[Raiders of the Lost Ark]], many Nazis are killed because they open up the Ark, however, Indiana and the woman Marian are spared because they close their eyes as the Ark is being opened.

== New Covenant ==
The Ark of the New Covenant is the Blessed [[Virgin]] [[Mary]], who, just as the Ark of the Old Covenant bore the God's Commandments, bore Our [[Lord]], [[Jesus Christ]].

==See Also==
*[[Noah's Ark]], which did not contain Covenants, but Animals

Kenya

2007-05-15T07:01:40Z

TylerD.: Wildlife section

[[Image:kenyamap.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Kenya.]]

[[Image:kenyaflag.gif|thumb|right|250px|The Kenyan flag.]]

'''Kenya''' is a country in East [[Africa]], between the [[Indian Ocean]] and [[Lake Victoria]]. named after the mountain [[Mount Kenya]] (Kilimanjaro). It has land borders with [[Somalia]], [[Ethiopia]], [[Sudan]], [[Uganda]] and [[Tanzania]]. The capital is [[Nairobi]], and [[Mombasa]] is the main port.

Formerly a [[United Kingdom|British]] colony, Kenya was briefly attacked by Italian forces from Ethiopia and Somaliland in [[World War II]], and was used as a staging post for the reconquests of these countries by British and [[British Empire|Imperial]] forces. After the war, Kenya was troubled by the [[Mau Mau]] uprising prior to gaining its independence.

The [[African Rift Valley]] runs through the centre of Kenya. There are numerous large nature reserves, important for tourism, including [[Tsavo National Park]] and the [[Masai Mara Game Reserve]].

==Wildlife==
Kenya is home to many wild animals, including [[lion]]s, [[tiger]]s, [[giraffe]]s, and [[zebra]]. Its [[ecosystem]] compares favorably to that of neighboring countries. However, the large numbers of wild animals in Kenya is making the local Kenyan farmers angry because they can't raise farm animals like [[cow]]s and [[horse]]s due to the large numbers of lions and zebras in the area.[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr19/0,4670,KenyaFutureofWildlife,00.html]

==Sources==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr19/0,4670,KenyaFutureofWildlife,00.html Kenya Farmers Fight Animal Welfare Lobby], ''FOXNews.com''

[[Category:African Countries]]

Elizabeth Dole

2007-05-15T04:34:07Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole''' is the wife of Bob Dole, a Republican from Kansas and former candidate for President of the United States of America. She is currently a Congre...

'''Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole''' is the wife of [[Bob Dole]], a [[Republican]] from [[Kansas]] and former candidate for President of the [[United States of America]]. She is currently a Congress-woman from the state of [[North Carolina]]. Her [[maiden name]] was '''Hanford'''.

In 2007, [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] appointed Bob Dole as a co-chair of the commission to investigate the alleged problems at [[Walter Reed Army Medical Center]].[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256922,00.html]

[[Category:Women]]

United States Secretary of Labor

2007-05-15T04:29:26Z

TylerD.: oops, Frances Perkins was not the first one!

The '''Secretary of Labor''' is the person in charge of the [[Department of Labor]], in the [[United States of America]].

The first Secretary of Labor was not [[Frances Perkins]], a woman, but many other women have held the position, including [[Elizabeth Dole]] and [[Elaine Chow]].

[[Category:People]]

United States Secretary of Labor

2007-05-15T04:28:57Z

TylerD.: New page: The '''Secretary of Labor''' is the person in charge of the Department of Labor, in the United States of America. The first Secretary of Labor was Frances Perkins, a woman, bu...

The '''Secretary of Labor''' is the person in charge of the [[Department of Labor]], in the [[United States of America]].

The first Secretary of Labor was [[Frances Perkins]], a woman, but many other women have held the position, including [[Elizabeth Dole]] and [[Elaine Chow]].

[[Category:People]]

Talk:Animal kingdom

2007-05-15T04:24:53Z

TylerD.:

Ways to improve this article:

*Not focused. The subject is "animal kingdom" but most of the text describes the other kingdoms. It doesn't describe what makes animals unlike other organisms.
*Not accurate. There is dissension on whether there are five kingdoms or six; i.e. whether the archaea occupy their own kingdom.
*Not sourced. The only link in the article goes to a discussion forum.
*Contradictory. The article purports that protists are a distinct kingdom, but that it contains "weird animals." It also makes the assertion that "everything else" in God's Creation belongs in the protist kingdom -- should be "other organisms."
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

TylerD--
I thank you for continuing to try and improve Conservapedia, however this is a scientific article, not theological. Therefore there is no place for religious viewpoints.
--[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 14:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

You shouldn't suppress the Christian viewpoint just because you don't agree with it. This is ''Conserva''pedia, not ''Sciento''pedia! [[User:TylerD.|TylerD.]]

Sea anemones

2007-05-15T04:22:22Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to Sea anenome

#REDIRECT [[Sea anenome]]

Yevstafiy Dashkevych

2007-05-14T06:25:03Z

TylerD.:

'''Yevstafiy Dashkevych''' was a [[hetman]] of the [[Ukrainian Kozak]]s.

[[Category:Hetmans of the Ukrainian Kozaks]]

Yevstafiy Dashkevych

2007-05-14T06:24:42Z

TylerD.: '''Yevstafiy Dashkevych''' was a hetman of the Ukrainian Kozaks. ...

'''Yevstafiy Dashkevych''' was a hetman of the Ukrainian Kozaks.

[[Category:Hetmans of the Ukrainian Kozaks]]

Pilate

2007-05-14T06:23:28Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to Pontius Pilate

#REDIRECT [[Pontius Pilate]]

Animal kingdom

2007-05-14T06:22:30Z

TylerD.: restored Christian point of view

The Kindom Animalia is a division of life that includes all the organisms that are classified as animals. They tend to have a multi-cellular structure. They consume other organic tissue to feed themselves. They are responsive to outside stimulus. They are motile durring some stage of life. Unlike plants, they do not have a cell wall.

The Animal Kingdom has the largest number of organisms yet recorded. It includes sponges, worms, insects, birds, mammals, crustations, as well as humans.

The '''Animal Kingdom''' is one of the five [[kingdom]]s in [[evolution]]ary [[biology|biological]] science. The other four kingdoms are

*[[Plant]]s, not including [[fungi]] -- the Kingdom Plantae
*Mushrooms and other [[fungus]] -- the Kingdom Fungi
*Eukaryotic organisms that do not fall under the other eukaryotic kingdoms, animalia, plantae, and fungi -- the Kingdom [[Monera]]
*[[Bacteria]] and otther prokaryotic organisms -- the Kingdom [[Monera]]

There is also the Protist Kingdom, that is everything else in [[God]]'s [[Creation]] that doesn't fit into a category. Protists, which come next to the Moneral on charts, are sometimes referred to as the "magic" kingdom.[http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-60518.html]

==See also==
*[[Baramin]]
*[[Species]]

[[Category:Biology]]

Animal kingdom

2007-05-13T20:57:39Z

TylerD.:

The '''Animal Kingdom''' is one of the five [[kingdom]]s in [[evolution]]ary [[biology]] science. It consists of all the [[animal]]s. The other four kingdoms are

*[[Plant]]s, not including [[mushroom]]s or plant-like things like [[sea anenome]]s -- the Plant Kingdom
*[[Fungus]] and other mushrooms -- the Fungi Kingdom
*[[Bacteria]] and other tiny creatures -- the [[Monera]]
*[[Protist]]s, which means everything else in [[God]]'s [[Creation]] that doesn't fit into a pre-existing category. Protists, since they include all kinds of weird animals and come next to the Moneral on charts, are sometimes referred to as the "Magic" kingdom.[http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-60518.html]

==See also==
*[[Baramin]]
*[[Species]]

[[Category:Biology]]

Animal kingdom

2007-05-13T20:57:06Z

TylerD.: New page: The '''Animal Kingdom''' is one of the five kingdoms in evolutionary biology science. It consists of all the animals. The other four kingdoms are *Plants, not includin...

The '''Animal Kingdom''' is one of the five [[kingdom]]s in [[evolution]]ary [[biology]] science. It consists of all the [[animal]]s. The other four kingdoms are

*[[Plant]]s, not including [[mushroom]]s or plant-like things like [[sea anenome]]s -- the Plant Kingdom
*[[Fungus]] and other mushrooms -- the Fungi Kingdom
*[[Bacteria]] and other tiny creatures -- the [[Monera]]
*[[Protist]]s, which means everything else in [[God]]'s [[Creation]] that doesn't fit into a pre-existing category. Protists, since they come next to the Moneral on charts, are sometimes referred to as the "Magic" kingdom.[http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-60518.html]

==See also==
*[[Baramin]]
*[[Species]]

[[Category:Biology]]

Sea anemone

2007-05-13T20:50:15Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Sea anenomes''' are inverterbate animals that live in the ocean. They look kind of like upside down jellyfish. They have sharp stinging tentacles arranged on their faces, and stalks...

'''Sea anenomes''' are inverterbate animals that live in the ocean. They look kind of like upside down [[jellyfish]]. They have sharp stinging tentacles arranged on their faces, and stalks like tree trunks down below. Anenomes comes in many different colors, such as [[red]] and [[green]], and they often live on [[coral reef]]s.

[[Clownfish]] have a symbiontical relationship with sea anenomes, which means that the anenomes live off of food dropped by the clownfish, and in exchange protect the clownfish from [[predator]]s like [[shark]]s. This kind of relationship is very similar to the way people keep [[dog]]s as [[pet]]s, but it is unique in the [[animal kingdom]].

[[Category:Animals]]

Jellyfish

2007-05-13T20:45:53Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Jellyfish''' are a kind of clear inverterbrate fish that live in the ocean. Jellyfish have sharp stingers in their tentacles that can hurt a lot if you get stung by one. For...

'''Jellyfish''' are a kind of clear inverterbrate [[fish]] that live in the [[ocean]]. Jellyfish have sharp stingers in their [[tentacle]]s that can hurt a lot if you get stung by one. For this reason they are sometimes called sea wasps or sea bees. Ironically, jellyfish are not edible. (See [[Jelly]]).

Jellyfish are found on every [[continent]] in the world, except [[Greenland]] and [[Antarctica]]. Jellyfish, like bees and [[polar bear]]s, have been known to kill humans. Kinds of jellyfish (scientifically termed "[[species]]") include the [[Portugal|Portuguese]] man of war and the blow jelly.

In 1965, the film ''The Sting of Death'' (a reference to [http://scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/15-56.htm 1 Corinthians 15:56]) was released, documenting in dramatic fashion the life and death of jellyfish in the ocean.

==References==
*[http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=welshman-cheats--death-by-jellyfish-&method=full&objectid=18271639&siteid=50082-name_page.html Welshman cheats "death by jellyfish"], Dec 16 2006

Munster

2007-05-13T06:23:00Z

TylerD.: '''Munster''' is one of the four traditional provinces of Ireland. Its largest city is Cork, although it...

'''Münster''' is one of the four traditional provinces of [[Ireland]]. Its largest city is [[Cork]], although it is also home to [[Limerick]] and [[Tipperary]], famous because of the song "[[It's a Long Way to Tipperary]]".

The [[Peace of Westphalia]] was signed in Münster on [[May 15]], [[1648]].

[[Category:Ireland]]

Department of Labor

2007-05-13T06:18:20Z

TylerD.: New page: The United States '''Department of Labor''' was founded in 1884 as part of the Department of the Interior. Its purpose was to "foster, promote and develop the welfare of wo...

The [[United States]] '''[[Department of Labor]]''' was founded in [[1884]] as part of the [[Department of the Interior]]. Its purpose was to "foster, promote and develop the welfare of working people, to improve their working conditions, and to enhance their opportunities for profitable employment." It was part of the Interior for a while, and then in 1903 became part of the [[Department of Commerce]]. It was made its own department in 1913.

The current head of the Department of Labor is the [[Secretary of Labor]].

[[Category:Departments]]

U.S. Department of Labor

2007-05-13T06:16:10Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to Department of Labor

#REDIRECT [[Department of Labor]]

Predslav Lyantskoronsky

2007-05-13T06:15:11Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Predslav Lyantskoronsky''' was a hetman of the Ukrainian Kozaks. Category:People Category:Hetmans of the Ukrainian Kozaks

'''Predslav Lyantskoronsky''' was a [[hetman]] of the [[Ukrainian Kozak]]s.

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Hetmans of the Ukrainian Kozaks]]

SPCA

2007-05-13T06:13:19Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to ASPCA

#REDIRECT [[ASPCA]]

ASPCA

2007-05-13T06:13:01Z

TylerD.: New page: The ASPCA, or '''American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals''', is a liberal animal rights organization similar in scope to PETA or the ACLU. It is not often...

The [[ASPCA]], or '''American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals''', is a liberal [[animal rights]] organization similar in scope to [[PETA]] or the [[ACLU]]. It is not often heard from these days, but its effects are often seen at the end of a movie when it says, "[[No animals were harmed in the creation of this movie]]."

In recent years, the ASPCA has dropped the first "A" (for "American") from its name, ostensibly to show that it is a worldwide organization, although it may be that they simply didn't want the word "American" in their name.

==See also==
*[[American Humane Society]], which has likewise dropped the "A" recently
*[[ACLU]]

Numbers

2007-05-13T06:08:37Z

TylerD.: remove silly pi vandalism

A number is an abstract concept used for counting or measuring. There are many kinds of numbers: [[prime numbers]], [[composite numbers]], [[real numbers]], [[complex numbers]]. These beliefs and belief in [[numerology]] is generally not considered compatible with [[Christian]] beliefs.

Numbers is also a book of the [[Bible]]. It is the fourth book.
[[category:mathematics]]

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-05-13T06:00:42Z

TylerD.: /* How conservative is the US? */ References section

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Sampling error isn't significantly affected by the percentage of the population included in the sample -- a representative sample of 1000 is as reliable in the USA as it is in Monaco. The problem in this case is that it's difficult to justify the assumption that those who self identify as liberal or conservative are representative of the community of Wikipedia editors. It may well be true that there are six times as many liberal Wikipedians than conservative, but it's not statistically reasonable to conclude that from a self-selected sample such as this.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The last time I looked at Wikipedia, the same size was 274 (for conservatives + liberals). This is not a large sample. The total percent sample size is about half that for a Harris poll (that it admits that it has errors that gives that it cannot give a good confidence[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548]), however the sample for wikipedia is self selected meaning that you cannot use it to make statistically responsible statements.[http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/2006/samp_err_stmt.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: It is baffling that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments. --[[User:Order]] 10 May.
3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

In a world of rainbow colors, it can be hard to decide with are "black" and which are "white". <SARCASM>Strangely, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Gulik2 is absolutely right. See Perry (1970) 'Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Year: A scheme'. Perry says that intellectual development occurs as follows:
# 'Dualism' - a simple interpretation of the world as black/white, us/them , good/bad etc.
# 'Multiplicity'; -= an acceptance that there are different points of view and they cannot be simply labelled good/bad etc.
# 'Relativism' - requires that the different points of view are contextualiised, and that knowledge/behaviour in one context may be perfectly acceptable and correct, may not be appropriate in another.

for a source see: http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/scholarship_teaching/perrystheory.html

What occurs to me is all that if Perry is correct, with the obsession with Liberals/Conservative points of view, many contributors on this site do not seem to have developed intellectually much further than their freshman year. Hm. Think I'll write an article about this...--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Perry Theory]] for the article --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Where did "12" come from?? ==

Ed, where did your "12" come from?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:It would be informative if somebody with access to the appropriate data could calculate the LQ for Conservapedia, for purposes of comparison? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== An X for a Y, for an L, for a C ==

This article has a few problems.

#X is defined as number of liberals, and Y is defined as number of conservatives. X/(X+Y) is '''the same''' as L/(L+C). The article argues that they are different, proving that the author doesn't know how to work with variables. And it proves that the author doesn't read his own definitions.
#The criticism that a measure is between 0 and 1, shows that the critic doesn't know that such a measure is equivalent to a measure that ranges between 0 and infinity. Take for example the negative logarithm of the first measure. It just show that the author has not the faintest idea about functions over an infinite domain.
#The remark that an increase from 90% to 99% is ''just'' a 10% increase, shows that the author doesn't know how to interpreter percentages. People who do work with percentages know that the difference between 90% and 99% is an order of magnitude.
#The comparison with other metrics is flawed, because the author didn't compare it with any metric that is actually used in literature. Earlier versions of this article pointed to alternative definitions of liberal bias. None of them is mentioned.
#Finally, this article repeats the old misinformation that the ratio liberal in the wikipedia is 3:1, while it is 1:2 in the American public. It doesn't mention the sources, nor that, if you look at the sources, this comparison is based on nothing but quick sand. It just shows that the author has no idea about statistics.

As a summary, this article proves nicely that in conservapedia conservative bias is more important than facts. Even basic mathematics, which is neither liberal or conservative, is canned to make a poor argument. [[User:Order]] 10 May

I saw that Aschlafly fixed some optinionated part of the article, without actually fixing any of the fundamental flaws. I would suggest to fix the fundamental flaws first. It, for example, still argues that X/(X+Y), where X are Liberals, and Y Conservatives, is different from L/(L+C), where L stands for Liberals, and C for Conservatives. If you want to fix something, fix that first. [[User:Order]] 11 May.

== Update ==

I extended and updated the article on ''lberal quotient''. If you find typos or factual errors, please feel free to fix it. [[User:Order]] May 13.

== How conservative is the US? ==
The article says "According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [1], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.", but according to Aschlafly, Jack Abramoff wasn't a conservative<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=158024&oldid=158009</ref>, despite his ties to Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Oliver North; his membership on G. W. Bush's transition team, etc. Rudy Giuliani made a statement held up as a "liberal falsehood of the day"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&diff=154374&oldid=153131</ref>, so is presumably not a conservative either. Given this, it certainly doesn't appear to me that merely self-identifying as such is enough to be considered a 'conservative' for this site, and the Harris Poll shouldn't be used to determine how conservative the country is. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:You make a good point, that will go ignored here. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Ward Churchill

2007-05-13T05:52:32Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Ward Churchill''' was a professor at the University of Colorado who falsely represented himself as an American Indian in order to become a lecturer on [[Native Americ...

'''Ward Churchill''' was a professor at the [[University of Colorado]] who [[deceit|falsely represented]] himself as an [[American Indian]] in order to become a lecturer on [[Native American]] studies.

[[Category:People]]

Cortez

2007-05-13T05:50:13Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to Hernan Cortez

#REDIRECT [[Hernan Cortez]]

Northwest Passage

2007-05-13T05:49:57Z

TylerD.: New page: '''The Northwest Passage''' is a fictional passageway between Europe and northern Russia by way of the Artic Ocean. Many explorers, like John Cabot and Henry Hudson...

'''The Northwest Passage''' is a fictional passageway between [[Europe]] and northern [[Russia]] by way of the [[Artic Ocean]]. Many [[explorer]]s, like [[John Cabot]] and [[Henry Hudson]], spent most of their lives trying to find the Northwest Passage, without realizing that it was in fact fictional --- there is nothing but land in the way! However, the search for the Northwest Passage led to many great discoveries, such as [[Cortez]]'s discovery of the [[Pacific]], and the [[Lewis and Clark]] expedition (also to the Pacific, but much later).

Some liberal scientists claim that a "new Northwest Passage" is being formed by the melting of [[sea ice]] in the North Atlantic and Artic oceans, although if there is such a passage, it hasn't shown up yet on [[map]]s.

[[Category:Geography]]

Herbert Spencer

2007-05-13T05:41:23Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Herbert Spencer''' (April 27, 1820 – December 8, 1903) was an English philosopher and prominent liberal political theorist. He was a defender of Charles Darwin's t...

'''Herbert Spencer''' (April 27, 1820 – December 8, 1903) was an [[English]] [[philosopher]] and prominent [[liberal]] [[political theorist]]. He was a defender of [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[evolution]], and coined the terms "the Survival of the Fittest" and "the Descent of Man." Spencer, like many scientists of the time, was a [[deist]], which is to say he did not believe in [[God]] ''per se'', but only in ''a'' god. Eventually, Spencer rejected God altogether and became an [[agnostic]].

Spencer is largely remembered today for his theories of [[social Darwinism]], the idea that Darwinist evolutionary ideas applied to people as well as objects. Social Darwinism reached its political [[zenith]] in the [[Nazi]] regime of [[Adolf Hitler]]. It is mostly discredited today.

Herbert Spencer died of poor health in 1903. He asked to be buried in the [[Highgate Cemetery]] of [[London]] so that he would be facing the grave of Karl Marx, the well-known [[Communist]] [[atheist]] political figure. A fair number of people travel each year to pay their respects to Marx and Spencer.

On the Origin of Species

2007-05-13T05:31:40Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to The Origin of Species

#REDIRECT [[The Origin of Species]]

Origins theory

2007-05-13T05:31:01Z

TylerD.: New page: An '''origins theory''' is a kind of theory that explains the Creation. The two major competing origins theories are baraminology and the Big Bang (which is typically assoc...

An '''origins theory''' is a kind of [[theory]] that explains the [[Creation]]. The two major competing origins theories are [[baraminology]] and the [[Big Bang]] (which is typically associated with [[evolution]]). [[Charles Darwin]] may have coined the term when he titled his most famous work ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''.

[[Category:Science]]

Zoo

2007-05-13T05:28:25Z

TylerD.: New page: A '''zooo''' is a place where animals are kept in cages for their own protection, and for the amusement of human beings such as ourselves. Some zoos are open-air, and some keep ani...

A '''zooo''' is a place where animals are kept in cages for their own protection, and for the amusement of [[human]] [[being]]s such as ourselves. Some zoos are open-air, and some keep animals in fairly enclosed spaces. A special kind of zoo is the [[petting zoo]], where people and children are allowed to touch and pet the animals. Petting zoos typically include [[llama]]s, [[goat]]s, and [[kangaroo]]s (in [[Australia]]), obviously they cannot include dangerous animals such as [[bear]]s or [[jellyfish]].

The most famous zoos in the world are probably the [[San Diego Zoo]], the [[Berlin Zoo]], and the [[National Zoo]] in [[Washington, DC]].

[[Category:Zoos]]

Polar bear

2007-05-13T05:24:43Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Polar bears''' are large carnivorous animals of the North Pole, hence the name ''pole''ar bear. They eat mostly seals, although they have been known to eat people, or (in ca...

'''Polar [[bear]]s''' are large carnivorous animals of the [[North Pole]], hence the name ''pole''ar bear. They eat mostly [[seal]]s, although they have been known to eat people, or (in captivity) [[penguin]]s (which are not part of their natural diet). A large polar bear can stand 11 feet tall and weigh more than 700 pounds, although small polar bears weigh less. The polar bear is on the [[Endangered Species List]] in the [[United States]]. There are very few of these bears left in the wild.

Polar bears have been known to [[miscegenation|interbreed]] with [[grizzly bear]]s in the wild, producing a polar-grizzly hybrid that is, if anything, more ferocious than either bear on its own.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly-polar_bear_hybrid]

At the moment, there is a polar bear cub in the [[Berlin]] [[zoo]] named "Knut," who has been the target of a campaign of death by [[German]] animal activists, who claim Knut would be "better off dead." However, as of this time Knut is not yet dead.

==References==
*[http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=255770 Berlin Zoo's baby polar bear must die: activists]

Meteor

2007-05-13T05:13:10Z

TylerD.: New page: A '''meteor''' is a kind of stone that falls from the sky. The ancient Greeks believed that the stones were Zeus's thunderbolts. A famous quote by Thomas Jefferson: :"I wo...

A '''meteor''' is a kind of stone that falls from the [[sky]]. The ancient [[Greek]]s believed that the stones were [[Zeus]]'s thunderbolts. A famous quote by [[Thomas Jefferson]]:

:"I would sooner believe that two [[Yankee]] [[professor]]s lied, than that stones fell from the sky."[http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/atlantis/greek.html]

However, true [[Christian]]s know that [[God]] can make stones fall from the sky if He so chooses, so we should not be surprised at these events. Scientists tell us that between [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]] lies an enormous cluster of meteors, known as the [[asteroid belt]]. It is the [[Earth]]'s passing through this belt and others like it that causes periodic [[meteor shower]]s such as the [[Perseiids]], [[Geminids]], and [[Taurids]].

Strictly speaking, "meteors" are stones that are falling through the sky (aka "fireballs"). When they hit the ground, they become known as "meteoroids." However, not many people bother to make this technical distinction. Even some [[textbook]]s get it wrong.

[[Category:Meteorology]]

Northern Lights

2007-05-13T05:04:46Z

TylerD.: The Northern Lights are a kind of phenonemon found in the sky in Alaska,...

The '''Northern Lights''' are a kind of phenonemon found in the sky in Alaska, Antarctica, and other Northern places of the [[earth]]. There is a similar phenonemon called the [[Southern Lights]], or Aurora Australis, which is found in the [[Southern Hemisphere]] ([[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]]).

The Northern Lights are similar in tone to [[Saint Elmo's fire]], which often appears on the masts of ships at sea. Sometimes they are accompanied by a buzzing or whistling noise. [[Scientist]]s in the past tended to discount claims of Northern Lights, blaming such stories on drunken [[sailor]]s, [[marsh gas]], or the planet [[Venus]], but these days the Northern Lights are accepted by the [[scientific community]]. This demonstrates the lack of certitude in science. (See [[scientific method]]).

For seeing the Northern Lights, one should travel to Alaska, or maybe to [[Iceland]], known as the "Land of the Midnight Sun" for the great deal of nightly luminance there.

==See also==
*[[Meteor]]
*[[Saint Elmo's fire]]

[[Category:Meteorology]]

Blessing

2007-04-30T04:23:21Z

TylerD.: New page: A '''blessing''' is the act of being blessed by someone. An example is the Priestly blessing (Numbers 6:24-26), which goes like this: :The LORD bless thee, and keep thee. :The LORD ma...

A '''blessing''' is the act of being blessed by someone. An example is the Priestly blessing ([[Numbers]] 6:24-26), which goes like this:

:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee.
:The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.
:The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Another blessing is the popular [[Irish]] saying,

:May the road rise up to meet you.
:May the wind be always at your back.
:May the sun shine warm upon your face.
:May the [[rain]]s fall soft upon your fields.
:May [[God]] hold you in the palm of His hand.

Sometimes [[children]] are called "blessings" by true Christians, but not often by unbelievers.[http://www.unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/valueof.htm]

World Wide Web

2007-04-30T04:16:38Z

TylerD.:

The '''World Wide Web''' is a distributed system of hyperlinked documents accessible via the [[Internet]]. Users access web servers via a client called a [[web browser]]. The WWW was invented by [[Tim Berners-Lee]].

Documents on the WWW are uniquely identified by a [[Uniform Resource Locator]] (URL). URLs are used to allow users to browse from one website, such as [[Conservapedia]], to another.

Conservative [[Jew|Jewish]] intellectual Abraham Silberschatz, in 2005, called for the closing of the Internet to corrosive foreign influences, especially those of the [[China]]: "Accepting [America's] commitment to online freedom should be the price that foreign governments must pay for the [[blessing]] of the [[Internet]] in their lives." [http://www.wgig.org/news/Web%20of%20the%20Free.html]

[[Category:Information technology]]

AU

2007-04-17T05:54:51Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to Gold

#REDIRECT [[Gold]]

Mata Hari

2007-04-17T05:52:35Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Mara Hati''' was a German spy during World War I in Europe. Born Dutch, she quickly assimilated into the underworld of espionage and became a seductive dancer. She cont...

'''Mara Hati''' was a German [[spy]] during [[World War I]] in Europe. Born [[Dutch]], she quickly assimilated into the underworld of [[espionage]] and became a seductive dancer. She contributed to German victory, but after the war she was rounded up by the Dutch and put to death by [[firing squad]]. Her head was [[embalming|embalmed]] after her execution[http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/7036/31860], but it has never been located, which led to the rumor that the squad's guns had actually been filled with blanks and that she was in reality alive somewhere, possibly [[Argentina]].[http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/zona/2002/01/27/z-00703.htm] However, mainstream historians and scientists dispute these claims.

Many books, and at least two movies, have been made about Mata Hari and her espionage.

[[Category:Spies]]
[[Category:Women]]

Espionage

2007-04-17T05:45:40Z

TylerD.: expand article

'''Espionage''' refers to the act of gathering information, generally using subversive [[mean]]s. A man who engages in espionage is called a [[spy]] or spymaster; a woman is called a spymistress.

The word ''Espionage'' comes from the [[French]] word ''espionage'', meaning literally "to spy". However, it was the Americans and Russians who made the most historical use of espionage, during the [[Cold War]]. Other countries who have used espionage include [[Israel]],[http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html] [[Germany]] during [[World War II]], and [[Great Britain]]. Espionage is much less common today, except for [[industrial espionage]], which is what happens when one company spies on another one. However, it has been reported[http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070408004907AA7xtaD] that [[Al Qaeda]] has planted spies in U.S. organizations, as well.

Famous spies include [[Mata Hari]], [[Benedict Arnold]], and [[James Bond]].

[[Category:Occupations]]

Milton

2007-04-17T05:38:22Z

TylerD.: Redirecting to John Milton

#REDIRECT [[John Milton]]

Metaphor

2007-04-17T05:38:00Z

TylerD.: New page: A '''metaphor''' is a part of speech in which two objects are compared, but without directly comparing them, for example: "My love is a red, red rose" would be a metaphor. However, "My...

A '''metaphor''' is a [[part of speech]] in which two objects are compared, but without directly comparing them, for example: "My love is a red, red rose" would be a metaphor. However, "My love is ''like'' a red, red rose" is actually a [[simile]], because it uses the word "like" or "as". Metaphors do not use these words.

Famous users of metaphors include [[Shakespeare]] and [[Milton]].

[[Category:Parts of speech]]

Fog

2007-04-17T05:35:08Z

TylerD.: New page: '''Fog''' is a kind of mist or cloud that is at ground level. (Or sometimes, at sea level, this is why ships are sometimes equipped with foghorns to clear the fog in fr...

'''Fog''' is a kind of [[mist]] or [[cloud]] that is at ground level. (Or sometimes, at [[sea level]], this is why [[ship]]s are sometimes equipped with [[foghorn]]s to clear the fog in front of them.) The word ''fog'' or ''foggy'' is also used [[metaphor]]ically to describe theories which are vague and unclear, as if in a real-world fog or mist. The concept of [[fog of war]] is also related.

The astronomical word ''[[nebula]]'' is [[Greek]] for "fog".[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nebula]

[[Category:Weather]]

Peanut butter

2007-04-17T05:27:02Z

TylerD.: restore link to documentary

'''Peanut butter''' is a type of [[butter]] made from [[peanut]]s. It was invented by [[George Washington Carver]] in 1878. Today, peanut butter is widely available in civilized areas of the West, often used in [[peanut butter and jelly]] [[sandwich]]es. Peanut butter can also be a staple in the diet of some domesticated animals.

==References==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 "Peanut butter: the atheist's nightmare"]

[[Category:Food and drink]]

20th century

2007-04-17T04:07:45Z

TylerD.: New page: The '''20th century''' (1900-1999) is the century in which most of us were born. It has been called "The American Century" and "The Bloodiest Century", because during most of it [[America]...

The '''20th century''' (1900-1999) is the century in which most of us were born. It 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]], 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 [[computer]] was invented in the 20th century, and popularized by pioneers like [[Bill Gates]] and [[Microsoft]]. The [[automobile]] was invented, and the [[refrigerator]], and many other items that the world takes for granted today. On the other hand, some inventions, like the [[telegraph]] and the [[steamship]], went out of style and were forgotten.

Presidents in the 20th century included [[William McKinley]], [[Gerald Ford]], and [[George 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]

The 20th century came between the [[19th century]] and the [[21st century]], that we are in now.

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

Indigenous Australians

2007-04-17T03:58:22Z

TylerD.: New page: The '''aborigines''' are the native people of Australia. Like most native peoples, they are dark-skinned, and traditionally dress in loincloths. However, in the 20th century th...

The '''aborigines''' are the native people of [[Australia]]. Like most native peoples, they are dark-skinned, and traditionally dress in [[loincloth]]s. However, in the [[20th century]] they began to come out of the interior of the [[Outback]] and into modern society, where they occupy a place similar to [[African Americans]] in America. Very few aborigines still wear loincloths, except in tourist parks.

Aborigines are not [[Christian]]; instead, they tell their own [[pagan]] [[creation]] stories of the "Dream Time", in which the world was created by a giant [[kangaroo]]. Both [[Biblical science]] and [[evolutionism]] contradict the aboriginal myths, though, because kangaroos were not created until ''after'' the [[Earth]] itself.