https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Ungtss 2026-11-13T21:47:10Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reasoning&diff=545474 2008-10-30T16:11:20Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Reasoning''' is the human effort to organize concrete facts and abstract logical principles in an effort to arrive at reliable conclusions. Reasoning can either be good or poor.<br /> <br /> Types of reasoning include:<br /> * [[Deductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which an individual seeks to test or demonstrate the truth of a proposition by establishing [[premise]]s, and organizing them into a [[syllogism]];<br /> * [[Inductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which an individual observes facts about the physical universe, and infers that because something is always observed to be true, it is always true;<br /> * [[Abductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which a person collects facts, seeks to develop the most reasonable explanation for the facts, and concludes that the explanation is likely true;<br /> * [[Circular reasoning]]: Faulty reasoning by which a person makes an argument for the truth of a proposition which depends on the truth of the proposition it attempts to prove;<br /> * [[Logical fallacy]]: Other types of faulty reasoning;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reason&diff=545460 2008-10-30T15:52:18Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Reason''' is the faculty by which one reaches judgment on matters of [[fact]], and is applied through the tools of [[reasoning]].{{who_says}}<br /> [[category:philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Dictionary]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reasoning&diff=545447 2008-10-30T15:24:26Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Reasoning''' is the human effort to organize concrete facts and abstract logical principles in an effort to arrive at reliable conclusions. Reasoning can either be good or poor.<br /> <br /> Types of reasoning include:<br /> * [[Deductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which an individual seeks to test or demonstrate the truth of a proposition by establishing [[premise]]s, organizing them into a [[syllogism]], and where the truth of the conclusion depends on the factual truth of the premises and the logical validity of the syllogism;<br /> * [[Inductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which an individual observes facts about the physical universe, and infers that because something is always observed to be true, it is always true;<br /> * [[Abductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which a person collects facts, seeks to develop the most reasonable explanation for the facts, and concludes that the explanation is likely true;<br /> * [[Circular reasoning]]: Faulty reasoning by which a person makes an argument for the truth of a proposition which depends on the truth of the proposition it attempts to prove;<br /> * [[Logical fallacy]]: Other types of faulty reasoning;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reasoning&diff=545445 2008-10-30T15:23:52Z

<p>Ungtss: New page: '''Reasoning''' is the human effort to organize concrete facts and abstract logical principles to come to conclusions in an effort to arrive at reliable conclusions. Reasoning can either ...</p> <hr /> <div>'''Reasoning''' is the human effort to organize concrete facts and abstract logical principles to come to conclusions in an effort to arrive at reliable conclusions. Reasoning can either be good or poor.<br /> <br /> Types of reasoning include:<br /> * [[Deductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which an individual seeks to test or demonstrate the truth of a proposition by establishing [[premise]]s, organizing them into a [[syllogism]], and where the truth of the conclusion depends on the factual truth of the premises and the logical validity of the syllogism;<br /> * [[Inductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which an individual observes facts about the physical universe, and infers that because something is always observed to be true, it is always true;<br /> * [[Abductive reasoning]]: Reasoning by which a person collects facts, seeks to develop the most reasonable explanation for the facts, and concludes that the explanation is likely true;<br /> * [[Circular reasoning]]: Faulty reasoning by which a person makes an argument for the truth of a proposition which depends on the truth of the proposition it attempts to prove;<br /> * [[Logical fallacy]]: Other types of faulty reasoning;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dr_Pepper&diff=545064 2008-10-29T20:26:27Z

<p>Ungtss: sp</p> <hr /> <div>'''Dr. Pepper''' is a carbonated, caffeinated soft drink sold in the [[United States]] by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. Because of the small size of the company, foreign bottling is contracted out to both the [[Coca-Cola]] company and the [[Pepsi Co.]] <br /> <br /> Dr. Pepper was invented in 1885 by Charles Alderton.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Soft drinks]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=544989 2008-10-29T17:25:02Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which rests on philosophical assumptions and values, and which cannot be tested against anything except its philosophical coherence;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> ==Assumptions of science==<br /> Philosophy of science depends on several philosophical beliefs:<br /> * Objectivity of reality: The idea that reality is objective, independent of the observer, and can be observed objectively;<br /> * Induction: The idea that an observation can be believed to be valid in all cases if it is true in all observed cases;<br /> * Coherentism: The idea that an idea can be believed to be valid if it is consistent with all other ideas held;<br /> * Parsimony: The idea that the best idea is the idea which requires the fewest assumptions to explain the observations at issue;<br /> * Theory-dependence: The idea that all observations depend on theoretical assumptions to frame and understand the observation;<br /> <br /> ===Materialism and science===<br /> Some argue that materialism -- or the belief that nothing can be proven to exist except matter -- is an essential assumption of science. However, this assumption is false for two reasons:<br /> * Materialism has been scientifically disproven; matter has been proven to be merely one configuration of energy among many, and many other configurations of energy have no corresponding material reality;<br /> * The belief in the existence of matter ''and'' the existence of X does not preclude one from studying matter. In other words, one's ability to observe and study the material world does not require one to deny the existence of any other, non-material reality;<br /> <br /> == What is science? ==<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> === Schools of thought ===<br /> There are several schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]]:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> <br /> === Science as objective or subjective ===<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes important in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate tectonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it (supposedly) does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> == What is science good for? ==<br /> There are two schools of thought on the purpose of science.<br /> * [[Scientific realism]] is the belief that science can and does lead to [[truth]];<br /> * [[Scientific instrumentalism]] is the belief that science leads to useful, although not necessarily ''true'', descriptions of the world;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=542759 2008-10-25T17:44:15Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There several purposes in being an internet parodist:<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree, particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing. They can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night&quot;), and then laughing at them when they believe you. Since this type of parodist presents a plausible case, they are only taking pleasure at others' good faith.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]], which states that it is impossible to parody certain extreme points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied, so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among the group they are parodying. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users, and deleting good-faith comments from talk-pages while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, this form of parody is a [[logical fallacy]].<br /> <br /> == Internet parodists as a liberal phenomenon ==<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?&quot; [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]&lt;/ref&gt;), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums.<br /> <br /> Possible explanations for the correlation between political persuasion and parody include, from a conservative perspective:<br /> * Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody<br /> * Something in the mind of parodists that makes them more prone to be liberal<br /> * The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant<br /> * The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with<br /> <br /> From a liberal perspective:<br /> * There is less to parody about the liberal point of view<br /> * Conservatives lack a sense of humor<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&diff=542634 2008-10-25T14:24:03Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Reverse Racism''' is racism by or for the benefit of groups that have historically been the victims of racism. As such, it does not refer to the &quot;reverse&quot; of racism, but to a reversal in the ''direction'' of racism.<br /> <br /> Example of reverse racism include:<br /> * Racial quotas for employment or education, which give minority groups an advantage;<br /> * Racial rhetoric used by minority group leaders, directed against majority groups;<br /> <br /> ==Also See==<br /> * [[Bradley effect]]<br /> * [[Racism]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Psychology]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&diff=542633 2008-10-25T14:22:15Z

<p>Ungtss: race baiting moved to race baiting. This is now reverse racism.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Reverse Racism''' is racism by or for the benefit of those who have historically been the victims of racism. As such, it does not refer to the &quot;reverse&quot; of racism, but to a reversal in the ''direction'' of racism.<br /> <br /> Example of reverse racism include:<br /> * Racial quotas for employment or education, which give minority groups an advantage;<br /> * Racial rhetoric used by minority group leaders, directed against majority groups;<br /> <br /> ==Also See==<br /> * [[Bradley effect]]<br /> * [[Racism]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Psychology]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race_baiting&diff=542632 2008-10-25T14:19:06Z

<p>Ungtss: New page: '''Race baiting''' is a term for groundless accusations of racism. It is a unique and deliberate focus on race in an attempt to discredit others as racist. An important component of race ...</p> <hr /> <div>'''Race baiting''' is a term for groundless accusations of racism. It is a unique and deliberate focus on race in an attempt to discredit others as racist. An important component of race baiting is for the indicter to appear factual, neutral, unbiased, a person truely above racisms' perversion. Others are unapologetic about racial bias, referring to groups whether guilty or innocent, as rotten people that has to be exposed. It is subtle in its use, race baiting is considered hate speech and affects all races and religious groups, even gender.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==2008 Presidential elections==<br /> The race for President is not without the injection of racism charges. The first African-American [[Democrat Obama]] running against a white [[Republican McCain]]. McCain is an honorable person as proven by his 28 years of elected office and his dedication to this country during a time of war. This has not stopped his opponents from trying to associate him with racism by means of race baiting.<br /> <br /> ===Examples===<br /> *[[NYTimes]]: &quot;[[McCain]] ad that likened [[Obama]]'s celebrity status to lightweight celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Obama suggested three times on Wednesday that the McCain campaign was trying to scare voters with racial appeals.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/08/01/nyt-calls-mccain-ad-racist-mccain-camp-likens-editors-kos-kids NYT Calls McCain Ad Racist, McCain Camp Likens Editors to Kos Kids] NewsBusters.org, August 1, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjI2NzFlYzZmNDRiNzkyNzU1YzJiZWZhYmFlNmJkYmQ= Obama’s Racism Card] NationalReviewOnline, August 1, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *[[Time]] posts online, &quot;Obama's [[Fannie Mae]] connections are completely fair game. But this ad doesn't even mention a far more significant tie. Instead, it relies on a fleeting and tenuous reference in a Washington Post Style section story to suggest that Obama's principal economic adviser is former Fannie Mae Chairman Frank Raines. Why? One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black. Consider McCain's new ad, which the campaign says it will be airing nationally: ''Sinister images of two black men'', followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/mccain_plays_the_race_card.html McCain Plays the Race Card] TIME, September 18, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; Karen Tumulty, the TIME author, in laying accusations against McCain, points out that the Washington Post style is racist. <br /> <br /> *Democratic congressman from Georgia [[John Lewis]] drew a rhetorical line connecting McCain to the white segregationist [[Alabama]] [[governor]] [[George Wallace]] and, through Wallace, to the 1963 church bombing in [[Birmingham]] that killed four girls.&lt;ref&gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/12/john-lewis-smears-mccain-enabling-racist-violence-wapo-sugar-coats-it-bl John Lewis Smears McCain As Enabling Racist Violence; WaPo Sugar-Coats It In Blandness] NewsBusters.org, October 12, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; Obama and the Democratic national party distanced themselves and gave no rebuke of or apologies for Lewis's comments to McCain.<br /> <br /> *[[Washington Post]] editorial, &quot;false claims that Obama is [[Muslim]], that he trained to overthrow the government and that he was educated in Wahhabi schools are a standard part of the political discussion. These fake stories come from voices on the ultra right that have dabbled in other forms of conspiracy, including classic [[anti-Semitism]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302173.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 McCain and the Raging Right] Washington Post, October 15, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *The [[Associated Press]] claimed, &quot;Even mentioning the association with Ayers, as Sarah Palin did in a speech earlier in the week, signifies a hidden 'racial tinge.'&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/beck.issues/index.html Obama doesn't make you a racist] CNN, October 9, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *In a statement Obama repeated three times, he said what George Bush and John McCain are &quot;going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.&quot; Neither has done any such thing, of course. McCain has distanced himself from attacks with the remotest hint of racial undertones.&lt;ref&gt;[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjI2NzFlYzZmNDRiNzkyNzU1YzJiZWZhYmFlNmJkYmQ= Obama’s Racism Card] NationalReviewOnline, August 1, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; McCain's campaign made a small ad about Obamas giant ego, his image on Mt. Rushmore and the hundred dollar bill. Obama neutralized the criticism by claiming the ego attack ads are racist. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU John McCain's Youtube Account]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> *In an editorial titled McCain unleashes the 'kooks', ''&quot;Are we witnessing the re-emergence of the far right as a power in American politics? Has John McCain, inadvertently perhaps, become the midwife of a new movement built around [[fear]], [[xenophobia]], racism and [[anger]]?&quot;'' Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/30993754.html McCain unleashes the 'kooks'] Washington Post, October 15, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Republican African-Americans== <br /> As race baiting, liberals will purposely slight African-American Republicans on character and old stereotypes. Notable politicians and judges, such as [[Michael Steele]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] have been maliciously attacked in this way. In a Washington Times article, Michael Steele of Maryland &quot;....pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. Operatives for the [[Democratic]] Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report — the only [[Republican]] candidate so targeted. &lt;ref&gt;[http://michellemalkin.com/2005/11/02/the-vile-bile-we-have-to-put-up-with/ THE VILE BILE WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH] Michelle Malkin, November 2, 2005&lt;/ref&gt; [[Whoopi Goldberg]] delighted the Manhattan [[liberal]] theatre crowd with a little Clarence Thomas-bashing while hosting the Tony Awards on CBS. Typically, she suggested that Justice Thomas wasn't really a black man, to laughter and applause. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/16/whoopi-jokes-tony-awards-clarence-thomas-isnt-black Whoopi Jokes at Tony Awards That Clarence Thomas Isn't Black] NewsNusters.org, June 16, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Anti-Semitism==<br /> There are plenty of comments reminding voters of anti-semitism or its use in where none exists. For example, [[Ira Forman]], Executive Director National Jewish Democratic Council, said, &quot;Jewish voters should take comfort in knowing that [[MoveOn]].org is not a haven for anti-Semitism and the organization will renounce and remove any postings of the sort. Leave it to [[Republicans]] to not allow the truth to get in the way of campaigning.&quot;. In this statement, Forman very subtly equated Republicans with racism by specifically stating that a) MoveOn.org is not racist and b) Republicans are not like MoveOn.org. The National Jewish Democratic Council is a controversial liberal-left, anti-Christian, anti-military political foundation. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2094473/posts &quot;Jewish&quot; Democrats Host Hate-Monger and Impeached Perjurer Alcee Hastings] Free Republic, September 30, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> {{QuoteBox|&quot;'''Alcee Hastings denounces all gun owners and hunters as racists and anti-Semites'''.&quot;}}<br /> <br /> ==Also See==<br /> * [[Bradley effect]]<br /> * [[Racism]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Psychology]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=542582 2008-10-25T12:02:54Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There several purposes in being an internet parodist:<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree, particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing. They can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night&quot;), and then laughing at them when they believe you. Since this type of parodist presents a plausible case, they are only taking pleasure at others' good faith.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]], which states that it is impossible to parody certain extreme points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied, so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among the group they are parodying. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, this form of parody is a [[logical fallacy]].<br /> <br /> == Internet parodists as a liberal phenomenon ==<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?&quot; [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]&lt;/ref&gt;), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums.<br /> <br /> Possible explanations for the correlation between political persuasion and parody include, from a conservative perspective:<br /> * Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody<br /> * Something in the mind of parodists that makes them more prone to be liberal<br /> * The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant<br /> * The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with<br /> <br /> From a liberal perspective:<br /> * There is less to parody about the liberal point of view<br /> * Conservatives lack a sense of humor<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_parodist&diff=542580 2008-10-25T11:59:51Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Second half of article */</p> <hr /> <div>''One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps that fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.''<br /> <br /> Is this not perhaps because so much of Liberal ideology is beyond parody? In the words of the Conservative British commentator Richard Littlejohn, &quot;You couldn't make it up&quot;. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I would assume that it's because conservatives have standards than discourage them from deceiving. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I disagree with Philip. There have been great CPOV parodies and satires, but they are designed to enlighten, and maybe to jerk Liberals into an appreciation of reality. Liberal parodies, especially the rubbish we have to put up with here, are designed simply to damage, with no kind of intellectual underpinning or ''finesse''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::There's a difference between an honest parody/satire and an &quot;internet parodist.&quot; An internet parodist is someone who goes around pretending to be something they're not, for bizarre reasons. Honest parody, on the other hand, is an art form -- humorous and enlightening. But the people who sit around on CP all day pretending to be something they're not so they can snicker at people are just pathetic. I've never met a conservative who did that. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::You're right, Ungtss - ultimately, the joke is on them, not least because they are mentally ill-equipped even to understand the ideas which they are attempting to mock. That's why they are so easy to spot and deal with. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Easy for some to spot. Not for others. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:38, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Its just a question of having a 'nose' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:11, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I agree with Ungtss's 10:59 reply; I guess I didn't make it clear enough, but I was talking about ''deceitful'' parody, not parody/satire that is clearly that, and which most people would not mistake. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am a rotten liberal, atheist but I still feel that I basically agree with the gist of this article. I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to edit or debate or even to use humor or sarcasm on Conservapedia but I think to disguise yourself as a parodists or to be a vandal is pretty unproductive. [[User:MichaelFAnderson|MichaelFAnderson]] 10:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Appreciate your perspective. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Capitalization==<br /> How come the article changes from the convention of not capitalizing the names of political viewpoitns (Here being conservative and liberal) to capitalizing them in the last section of the article? Is this stylistic, or should it be fixed? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:51, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Different editor. Should probably be fixed. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Second half of article ==<br /> <br /> The long paragraph that starts with &quot;one wonders&quot; is basically just speculation (as evidenced by the use of the phrase &quot;one wonders&quot;), and the refs are... strange to say the least. One ref is a viral promotion of a politicized documentary, one is a comment in a forum, and another is a blog.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure what the purpose of the last section is. Possible explanations of what? I would think it would be &quot;possible explanations that people parody on the internet&quot;, but then the &quot;liberal perspective&quot; list doesn't make any sense. And again, this section is just speculation, as evidenced by the use of the phrase &quot;possible explanations&quot;. I think both of these paragraphs should be either removed (my preference) or substantially rewritten. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Seconding HelpJazz's point. The references for the second half of the article are lacking in authoritative strength. They are comments copied out of comments sections of forums, asserting something was a parody and how foolish for those conservatives/liberals to not see it as such. While these are examples of the behavior, they don't indicate whether this is widespread, nor do they have the authority of a well-documented attack of internet parody - i.e. they could be a fluke. Unless some more substantive references are included (i.e. beyond forums or blogs), I'd propose moving this to the essay space, such as Essay:Purposes for Internet Parody. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Poe's law only states that ''somebody'' will mistake the parody for the real thing. The cites are to instances where that took place. The first is a parody, and the other two are liberals mistaking a parody for the real thing. That was my only purpose in adding that section. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 07:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541956 2008-10-24T16:31:41Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;)&lt;ref&gt;If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?&quot; [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> , the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums.<br /> <br /> Possible explanations include:<br /> From a conservative perspective:<br /> * Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody;<br /> * Something in the mind of parodists that makes them more prone to be liberal;<br /> * The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant.<br /> * The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with.<br /> <br /> From a liberal perspective:<br /> * There is less to parody about the liberal point of view;<br /> * Conservatives lack a sense of humor;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541947 2008-10-24T16:13:58Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;)&lt;ref&gt;If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?&quot; [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> , the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums.<br /> <br /> Possible explanations include:<br /> * Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody;<br /> * Something in the mind of parodists that makes them more prone to be liberal;<br /> * The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant.<br /> * The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541942 2008-10-24T15:58:04Z

<p>Ungtss: Cleanup</p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;)&lt;ref&gt;If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?&quot; [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> , the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums.<br /> <br /> Possible explanations include:<br /> * Something in the mind of liberals that makes them more prone to parody;<br /> * The liberal world outlook may be far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, conservative attempts at parody are simply redundant.<br /> * The narrowness of the liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_parodist&diff=541936 2008-10-24T15:53:30Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Capitalization */</p> <hr /> <div>''One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps that fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.''<br /> <br /> Is this not perhaps because so much of Liberal ideology is beyond parody? In the words of the Conservative British commentator Richard Littlejohn, &quot;You couldn't make it up&quot;. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I would assume that it's because conservatives have standards than discourage them from deceiving. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I disagree with Philip. There have been great CPOV parodies and satires, but they are designed to enlighten, and maybe to jerk Liberals into an appreciation of reality. Liberal parodies, especially the rubbish we have to put up with here, are designed simply to damage, with no kind of intellectual underpinning or ''finesse''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::There's a difference between an honest parody/satire and an &quot;internet parodist.&quot; An internet parodist is someone who goes around pretending to be something they're not, for bizarre reasons. Honest parody, on the other hand, is an art form -- humorous and enlightening. But the people who sit around on CP all day pretending to be something they're not so they can snicker at people are just pathetic. I've never met a conservative who did that. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::You're right, Ungtss - ultimately, the joke is on them, not least because they are mentally ill-equipped even to understand the ideas which they are attempting to mock. That's why they are so easy to spot and deal with. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Easy for some to spot. Not for others. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:38, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am a rotten liberal, atheist but I still feel that I basically agree with the gist of this article. I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to edit or debate or even to use humor or sarcasm on Conservapedia but I think to disguise yourself as a parodists or to be a vandal is pretty unproductive. [[User:MichaelFAnderson|MichaelFAnderson]] 10:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Appreciate your perspective. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Capitalization==<br /> How come the article changes from the convention of not capitalizing the names of political viewpoitns (Here being conservative and liberal) to capitalizing them in the last section of the article? Is this stylistic, or should it be fixed? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:51, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Different editor. Should probably be fixed. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541931 2008-10-24T15:46:54Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;)&lt;ref&gt;If I'm hearing the lyrics right, this is a strong pro-science message ... This is simply not how a creationist would parody the pro-science side. Where are the farting noises?&quot; [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php Pharyngula]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> , the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.It may also be that the Liberal world outlook is far more prone to spawn wildly excesisive manifestations that display little touch with objective reality: under such circumstances, and Conservative attempts at paropdy are simply redundant.<br /> <br /> It is also the case that the narrowness of the Liberal mindset, and the level of maturity displayed by the Liberal shock-troops of the internet, are such that parodists are easily spotted and dealt with.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_parodist&diff=541926 2008-10-24T15:38:58Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>''One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps that fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.''<br /> <br /> Is this not perhaps because so much of Liberal ideology is beyond parody? In the words of the Conservative British commentator Richard Littlejohn, &quot;You couldn't make it up&quot;. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I would assume that it's because conservatives have standards than discourage them from deceiving. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I disagree with Philip. There have been great CPOV parodies and satires, but they are designed to enlighten, and maybe to jerk Liberals into an appreciation of reality. Liberal parodies, especially the rubbish we have to put up with here, are designed simply to damage, with no kind of intellectual underpinning or ''finesse''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::There's a difference between an honest parody/satire and an &quot;internet parodist.&quot; An internet parodist is someone who goes around pretending to be something they're not, for bizarre reasons. Honest parody, on the other hand, is an art form -- humorous and enlightening. But the people who sit around on CP all day pretending to be something they're not so they can snicker at people are just pathetic. I've never met a conservative who did that. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::You're right, Ungtss - ultimately, the joke is on them, not least because they are mentally ill-equipped even to understand the ideas which they are attempting to mock. That's why they are so easy to spot and deal with. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Easy for some to spot. Not for others. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:38, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am a rotten liberal, atheist but I still feel that I basically agree with the gist of this article. I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to edit or debate or even to use humor or sarcasm on Conservapedia but I think to disguise yourself as a parodists or to be a vandal is pretty unproductive. [[User:MichaelFAnderson|MichaelFAnderson]] 10:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Appreciate your perspective. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_parodist&diff=541903 2008-10-24T14:59:59Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>''One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps that fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.''<br /> <br /> Is this not perhaps because so much of Liberal ideology is beyond parody? In the words of the Conservative British commentator Richard Littlejohn, &quot;You couldn't make it up&quot;. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I would assume that it's because conservatives have standards than discourage them from deceiving. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I disagree with Philip. There have been great CPOV parodies and satires, but they are designed to enlighten, and maybe to jerk Liberals into an appreciation of reality. Liberal parodies, especially the rubbish we have to put up with here, are designed simply to damage, with no kind of intellectual underpinning or ''finesse''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::There's a difference between an honest parody/satire and an &quot;internet parodist.&quot; An internet parodist is someone who goes around pretending to be something they're not, for bizarre reasons. Honest parody, on the other hand, is an art form -- humorous and enlightening. But the people who sit around on CP all day pretending to be something they're not so they can snicker at people are just pathetic. I've never met a conservative who did that. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am a rotten liberal, atheist but I still feel that I basically agree with the gist of this article. I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to edit or debate or even to use humor or sarcasm on Conservapedia but I think to disguise yourself as a parodists or to be a vandal is pretty unproductive. [[User:MichaelFAnderson|MichaelFAnderson]] 10:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Appreciate your perspective. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541899 2008-10-24T14:54:49Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw Beware the believers!]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541898 2008-10-24T14:53:52Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt; [[www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw | Beware the believers!]]&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541897 2008-10-24T14:51:43Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt;www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541896 2008-10-24T14:50:46Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled&lt;ref&gt;www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&lt;/ref&gt;, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well&lt;ref&gt;&quot;C'mon HH, that video is pure Terry Gilliam Python style. Its intended to be absurd, so absurd that the mockery of the academics that makes up most of the content actually ends up making fun of their adversaries (creationists). It is a parody of the creationist criticisms of those academics! The second funniest thing about it, however, is the people on PZs blog (and now you HH, sorry), who are convinced it is some creationist propaganda piece. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9780&lt;/ref&gt;), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541814 2008-10-24T12:28:59Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing &quot;conservatives&quot; to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.<br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541763 2008-10-24T04:09:15Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are two identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other is a [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot; Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove their is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> <br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_parodist&diff=541762 2008-10-24T04:07:58Z

<p>Ungtss: New page: An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as blogs, wikis, and newsgroups. There are two identi...</p> <hr /> <div>An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].<br /> <br /> There are two identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other is a [[logical fallacy]].<br /> * Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like &quot;I went bowling last night,&quot;) and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, &quot;Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?&quot;<br /> * Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]]. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove their is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.<br /> <br /> One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_racism&diff=539525 2008-10-20T19:23:31Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>Could the intro to this article be a little clearer? I know I'm dense sometimes, but I don't quite follow it (though the examples help). The most common uses of the term &quot;reverse racism&quot; are a black person being racist against white people (which is really just racism and in no way &quot;reversed&quot;) or a preference ''for'' someone of another race (which again, would just be racism). This article obviously uses it differently. As best as I can tell, it uses the term to mean people casting unfounded and unjustified accusations of racism. Is that right? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 14:25, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The history on this page is that it was once deleted by CP, for reasons unknown to me. Google has 375,000 links to Reverse racism. To Reverse racist, over 3 million. So I believe it has its place. Second, can you tell that charges of racism are being levied where no racism exists? That is what this page is. I welcome all to edit, to make it the best on the Internet. --'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:36, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Wait, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place. It seems like a good topic to cover. I'm only saying that I'm not quite sure of what the term means as it's used here. I was just hoping someone could explain it to me, and maybe clarify it in the intro. I can't clear it up myself, since I don't know that I'd get it right because I don't quite understand it myself. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 14:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::racism accusations where no racism exists.--'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:56, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Thanks! I altered the intro to say that. I hope that's ok! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:08, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;Reverse Racism is an accusation of racism where no racism exists&quot; I have never heard this as the definition of &quot;reverse racism&quot;. RR is usually racism &quot;the other way&quot;, that is, minority races being racist towards majority races. The definition given in the article would describe &quot;false racism&quot; or some such term that probably doesn't exist. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If a white man says something demeaning about a black man, that is racist. If a black man says something demeaning about a white man, that is racist too. Regardless of majority/minority status, these are both incidents of racism, not reverse racism. RR is not the opposite of racism, although it is often used as such. WP stated conclusions, the majority group racism being replaced by minority group racism. Let's determine its actual definition via Affirmative Action example. Minority disadvantage propped-up by the Majority. In essence, the member of the more qualified Majority losses out. Where does the guilt lie? Group Majority is against Majority member, by law. Is reverse racism- the intended target against a race, protected, target of race is then deflected to non-protected group or race, and told sorry? Is reverse racism just 'new racism'? It is deep and more understanding needed. In the guis of doing good, laws are inacted to protect the less fortunate from discrimination. These same laws that fight discrimination, actually discriminate against others.--'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:01, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: &quot;In the guise of doing good, laws are enacted to protect the less fortunate from discrimination (Affirmative Action). These same laws that fight discrimination, actually discriminate against others.&quot; The are two separate instances of racism. One, I mentioned the white person doesn't make the cut because the white group has to hire somebody less than qualified. The white person may cry reverse racism. The second instance, a white person decries Affirmative Action, claiming racism, it must be dismantled. The less qualified person says no-way, that is racist not to admit disadvantaged groups. One of these or both of these are instances of reverse racism. --'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT) <br /> :::I think I understood your concept of &quot;reverse racism&quot; until you said that. Why does either have to be an example of reverse racism? In the first instance, you highlight the problem of affirmative action and then say that the person will claim it is &quot;reverse racism.&quot; This is the definition that HelpJazz referred to, the definition that is incorrect. This is not the definition in this article. The second instance seems to adhere closer to your definition, but it doesn't seem to exactly fit, since it seems more like a disagreement over affirmative action rather than a false accusation of racism. Also, I don't exactly know what the purpose of the comment was. Was it meant to explain the article's definition of reverse racism? I think the point of HelpJazz's comment was that this article doesn't explain the common (incorrect) use of the term. Sorry for any misunderstanding. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 14:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I am also trying to get at the real definition because many exist. I trying to accommodate HelpJazz in making an accurate definition. Don't worry about being misunderstood, I am not able to logically convey a complex thought without sounding wacked. I was just trying to dissect WP's explanation for RR. I want to say the group label majority versus minority, is not reverse racism. But what is it then? Hunters aren't considered anti-semitic, but it is used purposely to brand them as such. That is as close to reverse racism I can come up with. --'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:07, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::I'm not saying that RR (as I've seen it defined) is a &quot;correct&quot; parsing of the two words, nor am I saying that it's not racism. What I'm saying is that the definition given is ''not'' the definition of the word in popular usage. I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to mean offense, but from the WP sentence on, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:56, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I alluded to the definition you mentioned in one of the above posts, but even that use is incorrect. Racism is a prejudice based on race, any race, minority or not. I agree, however, that use currently used in the article is new to me. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:46, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::The usage might not be literal, but it's a correct definition. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:51, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Might this problem be avoided if we retitled the article &quot;Liberal racism?&quot; [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:25, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::NO. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:26, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Well the article uses the phrase &quot;reverse racism&quot; in a way I've never heard it used. Do we have a cite where somebody used it as &quot;groundless accusations of racism&quot; rather than &quot;racism by or for the benefit of those who have historically suffered from racism?&quot; 'Cause that's what reverse racism means to me and everyone I know. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_racism&diff=539473 2008-10-20T17:25:26Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>Could the intro to this article be a little clearer? I know I'm dense sometimes, but I don't quite follow it (though the examples help). The most common uses of the term &quot;reverse racism&quot; are a black person being racist against white people (which is really just racism and in no way &quot;reversed&quot;) or a preference ''for'' someone of another race (which again, would just be racism). This article obviously uses it differently. As best as I can tell, it uses the term to mean people casting unfounded and unjustified accusations of racism. Is that right? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 14:25, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The history on this page is that it was once deleted by CP, for reasons unknown to me. Google has 375,000 links to Reverse racism. To Reverse racist, over 3 million. So I believe it has its place. Second, can you tell that charges of racism are being levied where no racism exists? That is what this page is. I welcome all to edit, to make it the best on the Internet. --'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:36, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Wait, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place. It seems like a good topic to cover. I'm only saying that I'm not quite sure of what the term means as it's used here. I was just hoping someone could explain it to me, and maybe clarify it in the intro. I can't clear it up myself, since I don't know that I'd get it right because I don't quite understand it myself. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 14:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::racism accusations where no racism exists.--'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:56, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Thanks! I altered the intro to say that. I hope that's ok! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:08, 15 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;Reverse Racism is an accusation of racism where no racism exists&quot; I have never heard this as the definition of &quot;reverse racism&quot;. RR is usually racism &quot;the other way&quot;, that is, minority races being racist towards majority races. The definition given in the article would describe &quot;false racism&quot; or some such term that probably doesn't exist. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If a white man says something demeaning about a black man, that is racist. If a black man says something demeaning about a white man, that is racist too. Regardless of majority/minority status, these are both incidents of racism, not reverse racism. RR is not the opposite of racism, although it is often used as such. WP stated conclusions, the majority group racism being replaced by minority group racism. Let's determine its actual definition via Affirmative Action example. Minority disadvantage propped-up by the Majority. In essence, the member of the more qualified Majority losses out. Where does the guilt lie? Group Majority is against Majority member, by law. Is reverse racism- the intended target against a race, protected, target of race is then deflected to non-protected group or race, and told sorry? Is reverse racism just 'new racism'? It is deep and more understanding needed. In the guis of doing good, laws are inacted to protect the less fortunate from discrimination. These same laws that fight discrimination, actually discriminate against others.--'''&lt;font color=&quot;#6698FF&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#E41B17&quot;&gt;p&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#F88017&quot;&gt;a&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#347C17&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#A74AC7&quot;&gt;t&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User:Jpatt| ]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:01, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I'm not saying that RR (as I've seen it defined) is a &quot;correct&quot; parsing of the two words, nor am I saying that it's not racism. What I'm saying is that the definition given is ''not'' the definition of the word in popular usage. I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to mean offense, but from the WP sentence on, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:56, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I alluded to the definition you mentioned in one of the above posts, but even that use is incorrect. Racism is a prejudice based on race, any race, minority or not. I agree, however, that use currently used in the article is new to me. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:46, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::The usage might not be literal, but it's a correct definition. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:51, 19 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Might this problem be avoided if we retitled the article &quot;Liberal racism?&quot; [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:25, 20 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=538839 2008-10-19T17:23:43Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Materialism and science */</p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which rests on philosophical assumptions and values, and which cannot be tested against anything except its philosophical coherence;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> == Issues in philosophy of science ==<br /> ===Assumptions of science===<br /> Philosophy of science depends on several philosophical beliefs:<br /> * Objectivity of reality: The idea that reality is objective, independent of the observer, and can be observed objectively;<br /> * Induction: The idea that an observation can be believed to be valid in all cases if it is true in all observed cases;<br /> * Coherentism: The idea that an idea can be believed to be valid if it is consistent with all other ideas held;<br /> * Parsimony: The idea that the best idea is the idea which requires the fewest assumptions to explain the observations at issue;<br /> * Theory-dependence: The idea that all observations depend on theoretical assumptions to frame and understand the observation;<br /> <br /> ====Materialism and science====<br /> Some argue that materialism -- or the belief that nothing can be proven to exist except matter -- is an essential assumption of science. However, this assumption is false for two reasons:<br /> * Materialism has been scientifically disproven; matter has been proven to be merely one configuration of energy among many, and many other configurations of energy have no corresponding material reality;<br /> * The belief in the existence of matter ''and'' the existence of X does not preclude one from studying matter. In other words, one's ability to observe and study the material world does not require one to deny the existence of any other, non-material reality;<br /> <br /> === What is science? ===<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> ==== Schools of thought ====<br /> There are several schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]]:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> <br /> ==== Science as objective or subjective ====<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes important in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate tectonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it (supposedly) does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=538838 2008-10-19T17:23:14Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Assumptions of science */</p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which rests on philosophical assumptions and values, and which cannot be tested against anything except its philosophical coherence;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> == Issues in philosophy of science ==<br /> ===Assumptions of science===<br /> Philosophy of science depends on several philosophical beliefs:<br /> * Objectivity of reality: The idea that reality is objective, independent of the observer, and can be observed objectively;<br /> * Induction: The idea that an observation can be believed to be valid in all cases if it is true in all observed cases;<br /> * Coherentism: The idea that an idea can be believed to be valid if it is consistent with all other ideas held;<br /> * Parsimony: The idea that the best idea is the idea which requires the fewest assumptions to explain the observations at issue;<br /> * Theory-dependence: The idea that all observations depend on theoretical assumptions to frame and understand the observation;<br /> <br /> ====Materialism and science====<br /> Some argue that materialism -- or the belief that nothing can be proven to exist except matter -- is an essential assumption of science. However, this assumption is false for two reasons:<br /> * Materialism has been scientifically disproven; matter has been proven to be a mere configuration of energy, and many other configurations of energy have no corresponding material reality;<br /> * The belief in the existence of matter ''and'' the existence of X does not preclude one from studying matter. In other words, one's ability to observe and study the material world does not require one to deny the existence of any other, non-material reality;<br /> <br /> === What is science? ===<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> ==== Schools of thought ====<br /> There are several schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]]:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> <br /> ==== Science as objective or subjective ====<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes important in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate tectonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it (supposedly) does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=538830 2008-10-19T16:59:32Z

<p>Ungtss: assumptions of science</p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which rests on philosophical assumptions and values, and which cannot be tested against anything except its philosophical coherence;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> == Issues in philosophy of science ==<br /> ===Assumptions of science===<br /> Philosophy of science depends on several philosophical beliefs:<br /> * Objectivity of reality: The idea that reality is objective, independent of the observer, and can be observed objectively;<br /> * Induction: The idea that an observation can be believed to be valid in all cases if it is true in all observed cases;<br /> * Coherentism: The idea that an idea can be believed to be valid if it is consistent with all other ideas held;<br /> * Parsimony: The idea that the best idea is the idea which requires the fewest assumptions to explain the observations at issue;<br /> * Theory-dependence: The idea that all observations depend on theoretical assumptions to frame and understand the observation;<br /> <br /> === What is science? ===<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> ==== Schools of thought ====<br /> There are several schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]]:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> <br /> ==== Science as objective or subjective ====<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes important in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate tectonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it (supposedly) does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=537845 2008-10-17T16:29:53Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Science as philosophy */</p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which rests on philosophical assumptions and values, and which cannot be tested against anything except its philosophical coherence;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> == Issues in philosophy of science ==<br /> === What is science? ===<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> ==== Schools of thought ====<br /> There are several schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]]:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> <br /> ==== Science as objective or subjective ====<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes scientific in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate techtonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=537843 2008-10-17T16:23:45Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Schools of thought */</p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which is not empirically testable;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> == Issues in philosophy of science ==<br /> === What is science? ===<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> ==== Schools of thought ====<br /> There are several schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]]:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> <br /> ==== Science as objective or subjective ====<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes scientific in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate techtonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=537842 2008-10-17T16:23:16Z

<p>Ungtss: demarcation problem</p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which is not empirically testable;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> == Issues in philosophy of science ==<br /> === What is science? ===<br /> The [[demarcation problem]] is the question, &quot;What is science, and what is non-science?&quot;<br /> ==== Schools of thought ====<br /> There are two broad schools of thought regarding the [[demarcation problem]], or the problem of determing exactly what is science and what is not:<br /> * [[Positivism]], a position popular in the early 20th century and still popular in some circles today, is the idea that only facts which can be empirically observed are scientific, or for that matter, meaningful.<br /> * [[Falsificationism]], the position popularized by [[Karl Popper]], is the idea that science includes only those ideas which can be experimentally tested. If an idea cannot be tested, it is not science, but &quot;metaphysical,&quot; according to Popper;<br /> * Post-positivism, the position popularized by [[Thomas Kuhn]], is the idea that the scientific community is influenced by [[paradigm]]s, social, political, and ideological factors, such that science progresses through [[paradigm shift]]s, in which scientists work within a paradigm until mounting problems with the current paradigm reach a breaking point and force a new paradigm;<br /> * Feyerabandism, the position popularized by [[Paul Feyeraband]], is the idea that science is not privileged in terms of logic or method, such that scientists carry no special authority;<br /> * Thagardism, the position popularized by [[Paul Thagard]], is the idea that science includes those ideas taken seriously by the scientific community;<br /> ==== Science as objective or subjective ====<br /> The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought). The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter. The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is &quot;scientific&quot; if it is accepted by the &quot;scientific community,&quot; and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.<br /> <br /> This issue becomes scientific in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate techtonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies. Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is &quot;advanced for religious purposes.&quot; Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=537110 2008-10-16T03:20:52Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; includes the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; which are not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which is not empirically testable;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> <br /> For a primer on the subject, see Thomas Kuhn's ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''<br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_science&diff=537109 2008-10-16T03:20:19Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''[[Philosophy]] of [[science]]''' describes the fundamental doctrines which underlie scientific approaches to understanding the world. <br /> <br /> ==Science as philosophy==<br /> Science itself is ultimately philosophical. Proof:<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; are the various means of experimentation, observation, and analysis leading to empirically testable claims about the physical universe;<br /> * Philosophy is the process by which humans develop and organize their thought processes, values, and criteria for &quot;truth,&quot; and is not empirically testable;<br /> * Science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; as described above cannot itself be empirically tested; on the contrary, it is a human means of understanding the universe which is not empirically testable;<br /> * Therefore, science &lt;i&gt;as a process&lt;/i&gt; is not itself scientific; rather, it is philosophical.<br /> <br /> <br /> For a primer on the subject, see Thomas Kuhn's ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''<br /> [[Category: Science]]<br /> [[Category: Philosophy]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cognitive_dissonance&diff=533413 2008-10-10T13:14:28Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Examples of cognitive dissonance */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Cognitive dissonance''' is stress or discomfort caused by simultaneously holding contradictory ideas. <br /> <br /> ===Examples of cognitive dissonance===<br /> * A mother, who believes that her son is a good boy, learns that he has committed a serious crime;<br /> * An atheist, who believes that there is no design or purpose in biological life, faces arguments and evidence that support the existence of a designer;<br /> * A preacher, who thinks he is righteous, finds himself tempted to sin;<br /> <br /> ===Responses to cognitive dissonance===<br /> People respond to the uncomfortable feelings associated with cognitive dissonance in a number of ways, including:<br /> * [[Resolution]]: Identifying the source of the contradiction and adjusting one one or both of the contradicting beliefs to eliminate the contradiction;<br /> * [[Rationalization]]: Inventing faulty justifications in an effort to maintain both contradictory ideas as true;<br /> * [[Denial]]: Denying the existence of a contradiction where one exists<br /> <br /> [[George Orwell]] famously discussed cognitive dissonance in his novel [[1984]], using the term [[doublethink]].<br /> <br /> [[Category:Logic]][[Category:Psychology]][[Category:Mental health]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Evolutionist_style&diff=532938 2008-10-09T16:42:51Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Is Evolution Truly Scientific? */</p> <hr /> <div>==Darwinism and the Holocaust==<br /> <br /> DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between &quot;points&quot; 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about &quot;creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins&quot; is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic. <br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?<br /> In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].<br /> :I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::O RLY?<br /> ::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV) <br /> Samuel said to Saul, &quot;I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'&quot;}}<br /> ::{{cquote|Exo 22:18<br /> Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}<br /> ::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]: <br /> Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.<br /> ...<br /> I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.&quot;}}<br /> ::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...<br /> ::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying &quot;astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler&quot;.<br /> Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> == Is Evolution Truly Scientific? ==<br /> :All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the &quot;evolutionist style.&quot; You keep saying that &quot;evolution is science&quot;&amp;mdash;and by &quot;evolution&quot; I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and &quot;common descent from one ancestor.&quot;<br /> :So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes &quot;millions of years&quot; to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.<br /> :And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that &quot;dark matter&quot; trick on the world once before&amp;mdash;they invented a &quot;planet&quot; named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.<br /> :Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first &quot;dark matter&quot; object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the &quot;Higgs boson,&quot; an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.<br /> :Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped&amp;mdash;and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say &quot;Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider.&quot; And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::If Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolution had been disproven, they would be discarded, that's the point. Now, they've been modified, but that's also the point. Science changes its view of the world based on new information as it comes in. What you call &quot;near religious fervor&quot; is based on evidence gathered to date. If evidence comes up that appears to go against a widely held theory, fine, but unless the new evidence proves false or irrelevant all of the earlier evidence that lead to the theory attaining widely-held status in the first place, it's not enough to disprove the theory.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::You might want to read some Kuhn, ''On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. Your view of how scientific revolutions occur is a bit naive. The &quot;scientific community&quot; is notorious for hanging on to bogus ideas long after they've been discredited. They are humans, not prophets, and they are as subject to inertia, politics, and social pressures as anybody else. They just don't like to admit it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Is that true of all scientific ideas, or just the ones conservatives don't like?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::All scientific ideas, of course. Copernicus and Galileo faced the same opposition from the same obtuse, egg-headed old-guarders that couldn't admit that the young whippersnapper was right and they didn't have a clue. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Until that debate page is created, see my [[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever|essay]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === ET phone home? ===<br /> If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :ROFL. And how did Project [[SETI]] give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, ''or'' refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project&amp;mdash;and the other two things you mentioned owe more to [[Project Apollo]] than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe [[alcoholic drink]]s or any other intoxicating beverage.)<br /> :Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Concerning ET's: Not only because the Bible fails to mention them, but because their presence would contradict the purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]'s visit to [[earth]]. And also because no serious astronomer, when pressed, would be able to give an answer that could hold up to the question of where ET could come from. FYI, our [[Sun]] is in the middle of a thin &quot;habitable ring&quot; that is probably not much wider than the span between the perigalacticon and apogalacticon of the Sun vis-à-vis the [[Galaxy]]. Further to that, we're in a sparsely populated zone and hence not subject to lethal doses of ionizing radiation from neighboring stars. And don't go looking to [[Alpha Centauri]], either&amp;mdash;that's a double star, and rocky planets cannot be habitable in double-star systems. (Again, too many rads.) In sum, ours is an extra-special star in an extra-special place in an extra-special galaxy, made [[anthropic principle|just for us]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:09, 19 April 2008 <br /> ::::From the theological aspect, I think C. S. Lewis wrote some interesting fiction assuming that Earth was the only planet where the Fall happened--the aliens were JUST FINE until humans went and messed things up for them. As for the habitability zone, don't assume that life can't possibly exist anywhere just because it would be uncomfortable to your grandmother. Remember those heat-vent worms I mentioned? Their preferred ecological niche is around volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, in ''boiling sulfuric acid'' at pressures that would crush wimps like you or me flat.<br /> ::::Marvelous stuff, nature. It's part of why I find most religion's &quot;supernatural&quot; so unconvincing--it's not even as weird as the things we KNOW exists. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::# Don't confuse allegory (and fiction!) with legitimate scientific modeling.<br /> :::::# We have by now established that Mars and Venus are uninhabited.<br /> :::::# You haven't even begun to build a model for extremophilic intelligent life forms.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (EDT){{cquote|Pay no attention to the man working the muppet waldoes! The Great ET has spoken!}}<br /> <br /> <br /> I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...<br /> :Read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|first-ever essay]] for details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == migration, homing, and whales ==<br /> <br /> &quot;Deliberate ignorance about phenomena that evolution cannot explain, such as remarkable migration and homing, or the existence of the whale&quot;? '''What?''' I can provide perfectly good evolutionary explanations for all of these. Do you really want me to do so? Or should this line simply be deleted from the article? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Use of bizarre jargon ==<br /> <br /> If the deployment of &quot;jargon such as 'quote mining,' 'moving the goalposts' and 'fundies'&quot; by &quot;evolutionists&quot; is &quot;bizarre&quot;, how should one characterize the use of jargon such as &quot;[[evolutionist style]]&quot;, &quot;[[professor values]]&quot; and &quot;[[public school culture]]&quot; at Conservapedia? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good question. Please join me in debate at [[Conservapedia:What constitutes jargon?]] if you have time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:52, 30 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggestion ==<br /> <br /> This page spews overgeneralized allegations without evidence. I propose nuancing it (to &quot;fundamentalist evolutionists,&quot; &quot;evolutionary extremists,&quot; or something like that) and then using specific examples to back up each of the allegations. Seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Evolutionist_style&diff=532857 2008-10-09T13:31:40Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Is Evolution Truly Scientific? */</p> <hr /> <div>==Darwinism and the Holocaust==<br /> <br /> DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between &quot;points&quot; 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about &quot;creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins&quot; is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic. <br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?<br /> In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].<br /> :I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::O RLY?<br /> ::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV) <br /> Samuel said to Saul, &quot;I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'&quot;}}<br /> ::{{cquote|Exo 22:18<br /> Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}<br /> ::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]: <br /> Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.<br /> ...<br /> I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.&quot;}}<br /> ::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...<br /> ::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying &quot;astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler&quot;.<br /> Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> == Is Evolution Truly Scientific? ==<br /> :All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the &quot;evolutionist style.&quot; You keep saying that &quot;evolution is science&quot;&amp;mdash;and by &quot;evolution&quot; I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and &quot;common descent from one ancestor.&quot;<br /> :So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes &quot;millions of years&quot; to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.<br /> :And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that &quot;dark matter&quot; trick on the world once before&amp;mdash;they invented a &quot;planet&quot; named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.<br /> :Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first &quot;dark matter&quot; object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the &quot;Higgs boson,&quot; an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.<br /> :Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped&amp;mdash;and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say &quot;Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider.&quot; And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::If Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolution had been disproven, they would be discarded, that's the point. Now, they've been modified, but that's also the point. Science changes its view of the world based on new information as it comes in. What you call &quot;near religious fervor&quot; is based on evidence gathered to date. If evidence comes up that appears to go against a widely held theory, fine, but unless the new evidence proves false or irrelevant all of the earlier evidence that lead to the theory attaining widely-held status in the first place, it's not enough to disprove the theory.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::You might want to read some Kuhn, ''On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. Your view of how scientific revolutions occur is a bit naive. The &quot;scientific community&quot; is notorious for hanging on to bogus ideas long after they've been discredited. They are humans, not prophets, and they are as subject to inertia, politics, and social pressures as anybody else. They just don't like to admit it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Until that debate page is created, see my [[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever|essay]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === ET phone home? ===<br /> If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :ROFL. And how did Project [[SETI]] give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, ''or'' refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project&amp;mdash;and the other two things you mentioned owe more to [[Project Apollo]] than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe [[alcoholic drink]]s or any other intoxicating beverage.)<br /> :Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Concerning ET's: Not only because the Bible fails to mention them, but because their presence would contradict the purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]'s visit to [[earth]]. And also because no serious astronomer, when pressed, would be able to give an answer that could hold up to the question of where ET could come from. FYI, our [[Sun]] is in the middle of a thin &quot;habitable ring&quot; that is probably not much wider than the span between the perigalacticon and apogalacticon of the Sun vis-à-vis the [[Galaxy]]. Further to that, we're in a sparsely populated zone and hence not subject to lethal doses of ionizing radiation from neighboring stars. And don't go looking to [[Alpha Centauri]], either&amp;mdash;that's a double star, and rocky planets cannot be habitable in double-star systems. (Again, too many rads.) In sum, ours is an extra-special star in an extra-special place in an extra-special galaxy, made [[anthropic principle|just for us]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:09, 19 April 2008 <br /> ::::From the theological aspect, I think C. S. Lewis wrote some interesting fiction assuming that Earth was the only planet where the Fall happened--the aliens were JUST FINE until humans went and messed things up for them. As for the habitability zone, don't assume that life can't possibly exist anywhere just because it would be uncomfortable to your grandmother. Remember those heat-vent worms I mentioned? Their preferred ecological niche is around volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, in ''boiling sulfuric acid'' at pressures that would crush wimps like you or me flat.<br /> ::::Marvelous stuff, nature. It's part of why I find most religion's &quot;supernatural&quot; so unconvincing--it's not even as weird as the things we KNOW exists. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::# Don't confuse allegory (and fiction!) with legitimate scientific modeling.<br /> :::::# We have by now established that Mars and Venus are uninhabited.<br /> :::::# You haven't even begun to build a model for extremophilic intelligent life forms.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (EDT){{cquote|Pay no attention to the man working the muppet waldoes! The Great ET has spoken!}}<br /> <br /> <br /> I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...<br /> :Read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|first-ever essay]] for details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == migration, homing, and whales ==<br /> <br /> &quot;Deliberate ignorance about phenomena that evolution cannot explain, such as remarkable migration and homing, or the existence of the whale&quot;? '''What?''' I can provide perfectly good evolutionary explanations for all of these. Do you really want me to do so? Or should this line simply be deleted from the article? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Use of bizarre jargon ==<br /> <br /> If the deployment of &quot;jargon such as 'quote mining,' 'moving the goalposts' and 'fundies'&quot; by &quot;evolutionists&quot; is &quot;bizarre&quot;, how should one characterize the use of jargon such as &quot;[[evolutionist style]]&quot;, &quot;[[professor values]]&quot; and &quot;[[public school culture]]&quot; at Conservapedia? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good question. Please join me in debate at [[Conservapedia:What constitutes jargon?]] if you have time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:52, 30 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggestion ==<br /> <br /> This page spews overgeneralized allegations without evidence. I propose nuancing it (to &quot;fundamentalist evolutionists,&quot; &quot;evolutionary extremists,&quot; or something like that) and then using specific examples to back up each of the allegations. Seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Evolutionist_style&diff=532850 2008-10-09T13:13:30Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Suggestion */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>==Darwinism and the Holocaust==<br /> <br /> DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between &quot;points&quot; 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about &quot;creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins&quot; is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic. <br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?<br /> In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].<br /> :I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::O RLY?<br /> ::{{cquote|(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV) <br /> Samuel said to Saul, &quot;I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'&quot;}}<br /> ::{{cquote|Exo 22:18<br /> Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.}}<br /> ::{{cquote|Martin Luther [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html The Jews and Their Lies]: <br /> Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.<br /> ...<br /> I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.&quot;}}<br /> ::Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...<br /> ::--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying &quot;astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler&quot;.<br /> Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> == Is Evolution Truly Scientific? ==<br /> :All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the &quot;evolutionist style.&quot; You keep saying that &quot;evolution is science&quot;&amp;mdash;and by &quot;evolution&quot; I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and &quot;common descent from one ancestor.&quot;<br /> :So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes &quot;millions of years&quot; to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.<br /> :And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that &quot;dark matter&quot; trick on the world once before&amp;mdash;they invented a &quot;planet&quot; named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.<br /> :Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first &quot;dark matter&quot; object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the &quot;Higgs boson,&quot; an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.<br /> :Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped&amp;mdash;and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say &quot;Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider.&quot; And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::If Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolution had been disproven, they would be discarded, that's the point. Now, they've been modified, but that's also the point. Science changes its view of the world based on new information as it comes in. What you call &quot;near religious fervor&quot; is based on evidence gathered to date. If evidence comes up that appears to go against a widely held theory, fine, but unless the new evidence proves false or irrelevant all of the earlier evidence that lead to the theory attaining widely-held status in the first place, it's not enough to disprove the theory.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Until that debate page is created, see my [[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever|essay]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === ET phone home? ===<br /> If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :ROFL. And how did Project [[SETI]] give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, ''or'' refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project&amp;mdash;and the other two things you mentioned owe more to [[Project Apollo]] than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe [[alcoholic drink]]s or any other intoxicating beverage.)<br /> :Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Concerning ET's: Not only because the Bible fails to mention them, but because their presence would contradict the purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]'s visit to [[earth]]. And also because no serious astronomer, when pressed, would be able to give an answer that could hold up to the question of where ET could come from. FYI, our [[Sun]] is in the middle of a thin &quot;habitable ring&quot; that is probably not much wider than the span between the perigalacticon and apogalacticon of the Sun vis-à-vis the [[Galaxy]]. Further to that, we're in a sparsely populated zone and hence not subject to lethal doses of ionizing radiation from neighboring stars. And don't go looking to [[Alpha Centauri]], either&amp;mdash;that's a double star, and rocky planets cannot be habitable in double-star systems. (Again, too many rads.) In sum, ours is an extra-special star in an extra-special place in an extra-special galaxy, made [[anthropic principle|just for us]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:09, 19 April 2008 <br /> ::::From the theological aspect, I think C. S. Lewis wrote some interesting fiction assuming that Earth was the only planet where the Fall happened--the aliens were JUST FINE until humans went and messed things up for them. As for the habitability zone, don't assume that life can't possibly exist anywhere just because it would be uncomfortable to your grandmother. Remember those heat-vent worms I mentioned? Their preferred ecological niche is around volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, in ''boiling sulfuric acid'' at pressures that would crush wimps like you or me flat.<br /> ::::Marvelous stuff, nature. It's part of why I find most religion's &quot;supernatural&quot; so unconvincing--it's not even as weird as the things we KNOW exists. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::# Don't confuse allegory (and fiction!) with legitimate scientific modeling.<br /> :::::# We have by now established that Mars and Venus are uninhabited.<br /> :::::# You haven't even begun to build a model for extremophilic intelligent life forms.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (EDT){{cquote|Pay no attention to the man working the muppet waldoes! The Great ET has spoken!}}<br /> <br /> <br /> I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...<br /> :Read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|first-ever essay]] for details.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == migration, homing, and whales ==<br /> <br /> &quot;Deliberate ignorance about phenomena that evolution cannot explain, such as remarkable migration and homing, or the existence of the whale&quot;? '''What?''' I can provide perfectly good evolutionary explanations for all of these. Do you really want me to do so? Or should this line simply be deleted from the article? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Use of bizarre jargon ==<br /> <br /> If the deployment of &quot;jargon such as 'quote mining,' 'moving the goalposts' and 'fundies'&quot; by &quot;evolutionists&quot; is &quot;bizarre&quot;, how should one characterize the use of jargon such as &quot;[[evolutionist style]]&quot;, &quot;[[professor values]]&quot; and &quot;[[public school culture]]&quot; at Conservapedia? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Good question. Please join me in debate at [[Conservapedia:What constitutes jargon?]] if you have time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:52, 30 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Suggestion ==<br /> <br /> This page spews overgeneralized allegations without evidence. I propose nuancing it (to &quot;fundamentalist evolutionists,&quot; &quot;evolutionary extremists,&quot; or something like that) and then using specific examples to back up each of the allegations. Seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Menstruation&diff=532822 2008-10-09T11:47:28Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Purpose of Menstruation */</p> <hr /> <div>==Sinfulness?==<br /> <br /> I'm confused, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I read the cited reference which claims that sex during menstruation is a sin, but all of the Biblical references are from the Old Testament. It's my understanding that those same books from the Old Testament contain many laws and prohibitions that were not supposed to apply after Jesus came and began what is referred to as &quot;the New Covenant&quot;. Why, then, is this specific act still considered a sin but other Old Testament laws and guidelines not? What is the guideline for knowing which still apply? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It says &quot;were a serious sin&quot;, so the language implies that the act was a sin in the OT, and presumably no longer is a sin. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Oh, I took it to be (poor) grammar because of the plural use of &quot;relations&quot;. I'll clarify the sentence to refer to past tense, then. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::The cited reference appears to think it's still sinful. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:32, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well that's another issue entirely then. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Then I guess it was a grammatical error, and my original question above stands. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The passage itself is pretty clear that it's not sinful but simply caused &quot;ritual uncleanliness&quot; -- shoot -- the woman was ritually unclean simply for ''having'' her period, and nobody ever said ''that'' was sinful. I vote for removing the commentary at the bottom about it being a &quot;serious sin.&quot; Any seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:42, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I just removed it. It was really unnecessary as the Bible quote is already right there on the page, and the reference was full of odd ideas. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That was written before an edit conflict. To be clear, I removed the reference, and I'd be in favor of removing the last sentence as well. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Good call. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I'll knock it out. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::To be fair, the Bible does seem to make a distinction between ''incidental'' contact with a menstruating woman (resulting in ritual uncleanliness, Leviticus 15:19-24) and ''sexual'' contact (as in Leviticus 20:18, Ezekiel 22:10). In Ezekiel, sexual contact with menstruating women is listed among God's justifications for destroying the house of Israel. Whether or not this applies to modern non-Jews is a separate issue.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 14:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition==<br /> <br /> The examples given to justify the validity of the Biblical law are not good justifications for avoiding sex during menstruation. The Neuberger quote is based on 1910 medicine, and lumps concerns about venereal disease and leprosy in the same pronouncement regarding menstruation. The Ben-Noun quote is specifically addressing the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases. Neither of these presents a contemporary medical reason why sex during menstruation between a healthy married couple would be wrong, even if the Biblical prohibition says it is. This goes back to my question above - what makes this Biblical prohibition from the Old Testament valid in all cases while others like Kosher dietary restrictions can be ignored by Christians? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I've heard homosexuals use the same argument to excuse themselves from the verses from Leviticus that apply to them, but many Christians believe that the OT laws on sexual morality are still binding. The difference from the OT dietary restrictions is that the dietary restrictions, other than those maintained in Acts 15:20, were explicitly set aside in the NT. By contrast, the NT repeatedly condemns fornication, and many Bible scholars interpret the Greek word translated as &quot;fornication&quot; to include all forms of sexual immorality and thus to incorporate the OT sexual laws by reference. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: My friend DavidE, the prohibitions on charging interest for loans (usury), wearing garments of two types of fabric, etc., were not explicitly set aside in the NT. Do they still apply? In reality of course they only applied to the Jews when originally formulated, and non-Jews were never held to any of those laws ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:39, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Good points. That's why I'm asking some of the Biblical experts here on CP to help out and clarify this basic and important question: If Christians consider it proper and acceptable to no longer adhere to some Old Testament rules (like keeping Kosher) but not others (like the Ten Commandments), what is the criteria used to determine which O.T. prohibitions can be ignored without it being a sin? That would help answer where the sex-during-menstruation prohibition falls in a contemporary sense. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:07, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::It's nice to say that dietary laws went out the window in Acts and the rest of Leviticus is in play, but it doesn't really work. There are non-dietary, non-temple laws in the Mosaic law that Christians (and I am guessing most Jews, in some cases) don't adhere to. Look at the laws regarding leprous skin diseases in Leviticus. Do Christians expect people with leprosy to move out of town, wear torn clothes, cry out &quot;Unclean! Unclean!&quot; and keep their hair disheveled? No. Not at all. Does Acts say anything about how those laws are no longer important? No, it doesn't. How is this different from the menstrual laws for Christians? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:09, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::: See Fruchtenbaum [http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/archive/index.php/t-169697.html here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I found the Jewish perspective on this fascinating. The Jews believe that all gentiles (meaning non-Jews) are bound by the [[Noahide laws]], rather than the Levitical laws. We're not even bound by the 10 commandments. They say that 7 commandments can be drawn from the instructions given to Noah after the flood, and since we are all descended of Noah, we are all bound by those loaws. The Jews were given the Levitical laws because they are a chosen people, given special laws and responsibilities -- a city on a hill, if you will. Most Christians, however, are unaware of thise, and generally insert themselves in place of the Jews in the OT ... at least when it's convenient. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:37, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Purpose of Menstruation==<br /> <br /> This section needs some work, and really should be broken into sub-sections. The first should be a collection of historical views, as is currently shown (although there are no dates for some of the references, or a mention of the expertise of some - medical, religious, etc.)<br /> <br /> The second sub-section should explain the current medical understanding of the purpose of menstruation - readers turning to this article need to be presented with accurate, current medical information on topics like this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I don't know that there is an authoritative medical understanding of the purpose of menstruation. All I have seen are a bunch of different speculations. After all, how can you have a scientific answer to a fundamentally teleological (and therefore philosophical) question? Anyway, what's the &quot;medical answer,&quot; IYO? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Menstruation&diff=532762 2008-10-09T03:52:29Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Purpose of Menstruation */</p> <hr /> <div>==Sinfulness?==<br /> <br /> I'm confused, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I read the cited reference which claims that sex during menstruation is a sin, but all of the Biblical references are from the Old Testament. It's my understanding that those same books from the Old Testament contain many laws and prohibitions that were not supposed to apply after Jesus came and began what is referred to as &quot;the New Covenant&quot;. Why, then, is this specific act still considered a sin but other Old Testament laws and guidelines not? What is the guideline for knowing which still apply? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It says &quot;were a serious sin&quot;, so the language implies that the act was a sin in the OT, and presumably no longer is a sin. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Oh, I took it to be (poor) grammar because of the plural use of &quot;relations&quot;. I'll clarify the sentence to refer to past tense, then. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::The cited reference appears to think it's still sinful. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:32, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well that's another issue entirely then. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Then I guess it was a grammatical error, and my original question above stands. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The passage itself is pretty clear that it's not sinful but simply caused &quot;ritual uncleanliness&quot; -- shoot -- the woman was ritually unclean simply for ''having'' her period, and nobody ever said ''that'' was sinful. I vote for removing the commentary at the bottom about it being a &quot;serious sin.&quot; Any seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:42, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I just removed it. It was really unnecessary as the Bible quote is already right there on the page, and the reference was full of odd ideas. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That was written before an edit conflict. To be clear, I removed the reference, and I'd be in favor of removing the last sentence as well. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Good call. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I'll knock it out. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::To be fair, the Bible does seem to make a distinction between ''incidental'' contact with a menstruating woman (resulting in ritual uncleanliness, Leviticus 15:19-24) and ''sexual'' contact (as in Leviticus 20:18, Ezekiel 22:10). In Ezekiel, sexual contact with menstruating women is listed among God's justifications for destroying the house of Israel. Whether or not this applies to modern non-Jews is a separate issue.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 14:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition==<br /> <br /> The examples given to justify the validity of the Biblical law are not good justifications for avoiding sex during menstruation. The Neuberger quote is based on 1910 medicine, and lumps concerns about venereal disease and leprosy in the same pronouncement regarding menstruation. The Ben-Noun quote is specifically addressing the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases. Neither of these presents a contemporary medical reason why sex during menstruation between a healthy married couple would be wrong, even if the Biblical prohibition says it is. This goes back to my question above - what makes this Biblical prohibition from the Old Testament valid in all cases while others like Kosher dietary restrictions can be ignored by Christians? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I've heard homosexuals use the same argument to excuse themselves from the verses from Leviticus that apply to them, but many Christians believe that the OT laws on sexual morality are still binding. The difference from the OT dietary restrictions is that the dietary restrictions, other than those maintained in Acts 15:20, were explicitly set aside in the NT. By contrast, the NT repeatedly condemns fornication, and many Bible scholars interpret the Greek word translated as &quot;fornication&quot; to include all forms of sexual immorality and thus to incorporate the OT sexual laws by reference. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: My friend DavidE, the prohibitions on charging interest for loans (usury), wearing garments of two types of fabric, etc., were not explicitly set aside in the NT. Do they still apply? In reality of course they only applied to the Jews when originally formulated, and non-Jews were never held to any of those laws ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:39, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Good points. That's why I'm asking some of the Biblical experts here on CP to help out and clarify this basic and important question: If Christians consider it proper and acceptable to no longer adhere to some Old Testament rules (like keeping Kosher) but not others (like the Ten Commandments), what is the criteria used to determine which O.T. prohibitions can be ignored without it being a sin? That would help answer where the sex-during-menstruation prohibition falls in a contemporary sense. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:07, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::It's nice to say that dietary laws went out the window in Acts and the rest of Leviticus is in play, but it doesn't really work. There are non-dietary, non-temple laws in the Mosaic law that Christians (and I am guessing most Jews, in some cases) don't adhere to. Look at the laws regarding leprous skin diseases in Leviticus. Do Christians expect people with leprosy to move out of town, wear torn clothes, cry out &quot;Unclean! Unclean!&quot; and keep their hair disheveled? No. Not at all. Does Acts say anything about how those laws are no longer important? No, it doesn't. How is this different from the menstrual laws for Christians? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:09, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I found the Jewish perspective on this fascinating. The Jews believe that all gentiles (meaning non-Jews) are bound by the [[Noahide laws]], rather than the Levitical laws. We're not even bound by the 10 commandments. They say that 7 commandments can be drawn from the instructions given to Noah after the flood, and since we are all descended of Noah, we are all bound by those loaws. The Jews were given the Levitical laws because they are a chosen people, given special laws and responsibilities -- a city on a hill, if you will. Most Christians, however, are unaware of thise, and generally insert themselves in place of the Jews in the OT ... at least when it's convenient. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:37, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Purpose of Menstruation==<br /> <br /> This section needs some work, and really should be broken into sub-sections. The first should be a collection of historical views, as is currently shown (although there are no dates for some of the references, or a mention of the expertise of some - medical, religious, etc.)<br /> <br /> The second sub-section should explain the current medical understanding of the purpose of menstruation - readers turning to this article need to be presented with accurate, current medical information on topics like this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I don't know that there is an authoritative medical understanding of the purpose of menstruation. All I have seen are a bunch of different speculations. What's the &quot;right answer,&quot; IYO? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Menstruation&diff=532760 2008-10-09T03:50:45Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Menstruation''' or '''menses''' occurs at the end of a [[placenta]]l [[mammal]]'s menstrual cycle. There are two types of menstruation:<br /> * Overt menstruation, occuring in [[human]]s and [[great apes]], in which some of the lining of the [[uterus]] is shed and expelled from the body;<br /> * Covert menstruation, occuring in all other placental mammals, in which the [[endometrium]] is reabsorbed without being expelled.<br /> Over the course of the menstrual cycle, the lining of the uterus builds up in preparation for implantation of a fertilized [[ovum]]. If no conception occurs, the thickened lining is sloughed off and flows out though the cervix and vaginal canal. The process of thickening then starts again for the next menstrual cycle.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4 Menstruation and the Menstrual Cycle, from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services]&lt;/ref&gt; If conception occurs, hormonal changes occur in the body that prevent menstruation from occurring.<br /> <br /> Menarche is the onset of menstruation in an adolescent. This average age of menarche is twelve, but there is much variation. Amenorrhea is an unusual absence of menstruation and should be cause for medical consultation.<br /> <br /> ==Differing Views on the Purpose of Menstruation Through History==<br /> A number of hypotheses have been put forth regarding the purpose or benefit of menstruation:<br /> * The ancient physician [[Hippocrates]] held that menstruation was the body's means of purging itself of bad [[humor]]s, based on his belief that an excess of blood in the body led to health problems;<br /> * Margie Profet argues that menstruaction was the body's means of purging the uterus and reproductive system of bacterial infection, based on the fact that menstrual blood contains an unusually large amount of macrophages, or immune cells &lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8210311&lt;/ref&gt;;<br /> * Beverly Strassmann argued that the purpose of menstruation is energy conservation -- that the endometrium is very energy-intensive, so it is more efficient to maintain it for only part of the time. &quot;Endometrial economy,&quot; she argued, preserves the metabolic equivalent of six days worth of food for women.&lt;ref&gt;Strassmann, Beverly I. (1996) &quot;The Evolution of Endometrial Cycles and Menstruation&quot;, Quarterly Review of Biology 71, 2(June): 181-221. &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Elsimar M. Coutinho argues that menstruation acted as a sign that a woman had failed to conceive in the past, and as such is now &quot;obsolete&quot; and should be &quot;cured&quot; by modern medicine. &lt;ref&gt;Elsimar M. Coutinho, ''Is Menstruation Obsolete?''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Overt and covert menstruation ==<br /> Both overt menstruation and covert menstruation, the majority of the endometrium is reabsorbed. This leaves us with the question: why do humans and great apes experience overt menstruation? Some speculate that the sophistication and size of the endometrium required to support a human and great ape fetus. It may simply be too large to be reabsorbed, and the excess material is expelled via overt menstruation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8693059&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Menstruation and the Bible==<br /> Under [[Old Testament]] law, a woman was to be put apart during menstruation:<br /> {{Bible quote|And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. <br /> |book=Leviticus|chap=15|verses=19-24|version=KJV}} <br /> <br /> Max Neuberger, writing in his &quot;History of Medicine&quot; states:<br /> {{cquote|The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics, suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths, food, housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision, laws concerning food (interdiction of blood and pork), measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women, and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.&lt;ref name=Neuberger&gt;Neuburger, Max. ''History of Medicine''. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> An abstract for the L.L. Ben-Noun 2003 article in the ''European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology'' entitled &quot;What is the biblical attitude towards personal hygiene during vaginal bleeding?&quot; states the following: <br /> {{cquote|To analyze biblical passages associated with personal hygiene during vaginal bleeding. According to the Bible, a woman who is menstruating or who has pathological vaginal bleeding is unclean. Anybody who touches such a woman's bed or her personal things is also regarded as unclean and should therefore, wash carefully. Sexual relations are forbidden within 7 days from the beginning of menstruation and during pathological vaginal bleeding. Seven days after the cessation of vaginal bleeding, a woman is considered as clean, and therefore, sexual contacts are permitted. From a modern perspective sexual contacts during menses are associated with the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases, the risk of transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus infection, endometriosis and subsequent infertility.This report indicates that the roots of contemporary obstetric preventive medicine can be traced to Biblical times.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12475597?dopt=Abstract&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> [[CreationWiki]] sees the biblical injunction about a man not sleeping with a woman who is menstruating as one of the many examples of [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]].&lt;ref&gt;http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Biology]]<br /> [[Category:Human Development]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Menstruation&diff=532741 2008-10-09T03:37:50Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition */</p> <hr /> <div>==Sinfulness?==<br /> <br /> I'm confused, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I read the cited reference which claims that sex during menstruation is a sin, but all of the Biblical references are from the Old Testament. It's my understanding that those same books from the Old Testament contain many laws and prohibitions that were not supposed to apply after Jesus came and began what is referred to as &quot;the New Covenant&quot;. Why, then, is this specific act still considered a sin but other Old Testament laws and guidelines not? What is the guideline for knowing which still apply? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It says &quot;were a serious sin&quot;, so the language implies that the act was a sin in the OT, and presumably no longer is a sin. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Oh, I took it to be (poor) grammar because of the plural use of &quot;relations&quot;. I'll clarify the sentence to refer to past tense, then. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::The cited reference appears to think it's still sinful. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:32, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well that's another issue entirely then. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Then I guess it was a grammatical error, and my original question above stands. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The passage itself is pretty clear that it's not sinful but simply caused &quot;ritual uncleanliness&quot; -- shoot -- the woman was ritually unclean simply for ''having'' her period, and nobody ever said ''that'' was sinful. I vote for removing the commentary at the bottom about it being a &quot;serious sin.&quot; Any seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:42, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I just removed it. It was really unnecessary as the Bible quote is already right there on the page, and the reference was full of odd ideas. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That was written before an edit conflict. To be clear, I removed the reference, and I'd be in favor of removing the last sentence as well. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Good call. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I'll knock it out. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::To be fair, the Bible does seem to make a distinction between ''incidental'' contact with a menstruating woman (resulting in ritual uncleanliness, Leviticus 15:19-24) and ''sexual'' contact (as in Leviticus 20:18, Ezekiel 22:10). In Ezekiel, sexual contact with menstruating women is listed among God's justifications for destroying the house of Israel. Whether or not this applies to modern non-Jews is a separate issue.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 14:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition==<br /> <br /> The examples given to justify the validity of the Biblical law are not good justifications for avoiding sex during menstruation. The Neuberger quote is based on 1910 medicine, and lumps concerns about venereal disease and leprosy in the same pronouncement regarding menstruation. The Ben-Noun quote is specifically addressing the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases. Neither of these presents a contemporary medical reason why sex during menstruation between a healthy married couple would be wrong, even if the Biblical prohibition says it is. This goes back to my question above - what makes this Biblical prohibition from the Old Testament valid in all cases while others like Kosher dietary restrictions can be ignored by Christians? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I've heard homosexuals use the same argument to excuse themselves from the verses from Leviticus that apply to them, but many Christians believe that the OT laws on sexual morality are still binding. The difference from the OT dietary restrictions is that the dietary restrictions, other than those maintained in Acts 15:20, were explicitly set aside in the NT. By contrast, the NT repeatedly condemns fornication, and many Bible scholars interpret the Greek word translated as &quot;fornication&quot; to include all forms of sexual immorality and thus to incorporate the OT sexual laws by reference. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: My friend DavidE, the prohibitions on charging interest for loans (usury), wearing garments of two types of fabric, etc., were not explicitly set aside in the NT. Do they still apply? In reality of course they only applied to the Jews when originally formulated, and non-Jews were never held to any of those laws ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:39, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Good points. That's why I'm asking some of the Biblical experts here on CP to help out and clarify this basic and important question: If Christians consider it proper and acceptable to no longer adhere to some Old Testament rules (like keeping Kosher) but not others (like the Ten Commandments), what is the criteria used to determine which O.T. prohibitions can be ignored without it being a sin? That would help answer where the sex-during-menstruation prohibition falls in a contemporary sense. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:07, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::It's nice to say that dietary laws went out the window in Acts and the rest of Leviticus is in play, but it doesn't really work. There are non-dietary, non-temple laws in the Mosaic law that Christians (and I am guessing most Jews, in some cases) don't adhere to. Look at the laws regarding leprous skin diseases in Leviticus. Do Christians expect people with leprosy to move out of town, wear torn clothes, cry out &quot;Unclean! Unclean!&quot; and keep their hair disheveled? No. Not at all. Does Acts say anything about how those laws are no longer important? No, it doesn't. How is this different from the menstrual laws for Christians? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:09, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : I found the Jewish perspective on this fascinating. The Jews believe that all gentiles (meaning non-Jews) are bound by the [[Noahide laws]], rather than the Levitical laws. We're not even bound by the 10 commandments. They say that 7 commandments can be drawn from the instructions given to Noah after the flood, and since we are all descended of Noah, we are all bound by those loaws. The Jews were given the Levitical laws because they are a chosen people, given special laws and responsibilities -- a city on a hill, if you will. Most Christians, however, are unaware of thise, and generally insert themselves in place of the Jews in the OT ... at least when it's convenient. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:37, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Purpose of Menstruation==<br /> <br /> This section needs some work, and really should be broken into sub-sections. The first should be a collection of historical views, as is currently shown (although there are no dates for some of the references, or a mention of the expertise of some - medical, religious, etc.)<br /> <br /> The second sub-section should explain the current medical understanding of the purpose of menstruation - readers turning to this article need to be presented with accurate, current medical information on topics like this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Menstruation&diff=532190 2008-10-08T18:21:01Z

<p>Ungtss: purpose of menstruation</p> <hr /> <div>'''Menstruation''' or menses occurs at the end of a [[placenta]]l [[mammal]]'s menstrual cycle. There are two types of menstruation:<br /> * Overt menstruation, occuring in [[human]]s and [[great apes]], in which the lining of the [[uterus]] is shed and expelled from the body;<br /> * Covert menstruation, occuring in all other placental mammals, in which the [[endometrium]] is reabsorbed.<br /> Over the course of the menstrual cycle, the lining of the uterus builds up in preparation for implantation of a fertilized [[ovum]]. If no conception occurs, the thickened lining is sloughed off and flows out though the cervix and vaginal canal. The process of thickening then starts again for the next menstrual cycle.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4 Menstruation and the Menstrual Cycle, from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services]&lt;/ref&gt; If conception occurs, hormonal changes occur in the body that prevent menstruation from occurring.<br /> <br /> Menarche is the onset of menstruation in an adolescent. This average age of menarche is twelve, but there is much variation. Amenorrhea is an unusual absence of menstruation and should be cause for medical consultation.<br /> <br /> ==Purpose of Menstruation==<br /> A number of hypotheses have been put forth regarding the purpose or benefit of menstruation:<br /> * The ancient physician [[Hippocrates]] held that menstruation was the body's means of purging itself of bad [[humor]]s, based on his belief that an excess of blood in the body led to health problems;<br /> * Margie Profet argues that menstruaction was the body's means of purging the uterus and reproductive system of bacterial infection, based on the fact that menstrual blood contains an unusually large amount of macrophages, or immune cells &lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8210311&lt;/ref&gt;;<br /> * Beverly Strassmann argued that the purpose of menstruation is energy conservation -- that the endometrium is very energy-intensive, so it is more efficient to maintain it for only part of the time. &quot;Endometrial economy,&quot; she argued, preserves the metabolic equivalent of six days worth of food for women.&lt;ref&gt;Strassmann, Beverly I. (1996) &quot;The Evolution of Endometrial Cycles and Menstruation&quot;, Quarterly Review of Biology 71, 2(June): 181-221. &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Elsimar M. Coutinho argues that menstruation acted as a sign that a woman had failed to conceive in the past, and as such is now &quot;obsolete&quot; and should be &quot;cured&quot; by modern medicine. &lt;ref&gt;Elsimar M. Coutinho, ''Is Menstruation Obsolete?''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Menstruation and the Bible==<br /> Under [[Old Testament]] law, a woman was to be put apart during menstruation:<br /> {{Bible quote|And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. <br /> |book=Leviticus|chap=15|verses=19-24|version=KJV}} <br /> <br /> Max Neuberger, writing in his &quot;History of Medicine&quot; states:<br /> {{cquote|The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics, suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths, food, housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision, laws concerning food (interdiction of blood and pork), measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women, and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.&lt;ref name=Neuberger&gt;Neuburger, Max. ''History of Medicine''. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> An abstract for the L.L. Ben-Noun 2003 article in the ''European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology'' entitled &quot;What is the biblical attitude towards personal hygiene during vaginal bleeding?&quot; states the following: <br /> {{cquote|To analyze biblical passages associated with personal hygiene during vaginal bleeding. According to the Bible, a woman who is menstruating or who has pathological vaginal bleeding is unclean. Anybody who touches such a woman's bed or her personal things is also regarded as unclean and should therefore, wash carefully. Sexual relations are forbidden within 7 days from the beginning of menstruation and during pathological vaginal bleeding. Seven days after the cessation of vaginal bleeding, a woman is considered as clean, and therefore, sexual contacts are permitted. From a modern perspective sexual contacts during menses are associated with the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases, the risk of transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus infection, endometriosis and subsequent infertility.This report indicates that the roots of contemporary obstetric preventive medicine can be traced to Biblical times.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12475597?dopt=Abstract&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> [[CreationWiki]] sees the biblical injunction about a man not sleeping with a woman who is menstruating as one of the many examples of [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]].&lt;ref&gt;http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Biology]]<br /> [[Category:Human Development]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Menstruation&diff=532170 2008-10-08T17:39:30Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition */</p> <hr /> <div>==Sinfulness?==<br /> <br /> I'm confused, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I read the cited reference which claims that sex during menstruation is a sin, but all of the Biblical references are from the Old Testament. It's my understanding that those same books from the Old Testament contain many laws and prohibitions that were not supposed to apply after Jesus came and began what is referred to as &quot;the New Covenant&quot;. Why, then, is this specific act still considered a sin but other Old Testament laws and guidelines not? What is the guideline for knowing which still apply? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It says &quot;were a serious sin&quot;, so the language implies that the act was a sin in the OT, and presumably no longer is a sin. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Oh, I took it to be (poor) grammar because of the plural use of &quot;relations&quot;. I'll clarify the sentence to refer to past tense, then. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::The cited reference appears to think it's still sinful. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:32, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well that's another issue entirely then. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Then I guess it was a grammatical error, and my original question above stands. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The passage itself is pretty clear that it's not sinful but simply caused &quot;ritual uncleanliness&quot; -- shoot -- the woman was ritually unclean simply for ''having'' her period, and nobody ever said ''that'' was sinful. I vote for removing the commentary at the bottom about it being a &quot;serious sin.&quot; Any seconds? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:42, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I just removed it. It was really unnecessary as the Bible quote is already right there on the page, and the reference was full of odd ideas. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That was written before an edit conflict. To be clear, I removed the reference, and I'd be in favor of removing the last sentence as well. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Good call. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I'll knock it out. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::To be fair, the Bible does seem to make a distinction between ''incidental'' contact with a menstruating woman (resulting in ritual uncleanliness, Leviticus 15:19-24) and ''sexual'' contact (as in Leviticus 20:18, Ezekiel 22:10). In Ezekiel, sexual contact with menstruating women is listed among God's justifications for destroying the house of Israel. Whether or not this applies to modern non-Jews is a separate issue.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 14:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition==<br /> <br /> The examples given to justify the validity of the Biblical law are not good justifications for avoiding sex during menstruation. The Neuberger quote is based on 1910 medicine, and lumps concerns about venereal disease and leprosy in the same pronouncement regarding menstruation. The Ben-Noun quote is specifically addressing the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases. Neither of these presents a contemporary medical reason why sex during menstruation between a healthy married couple would be wrong, even if the Biblical prohibition says it is. This goes back to my question above - what makes this Biblical prohibition from the Old Testament valid in all cases while others like Kosher dietary restrictions can be ignored by Christians? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I've heard homosexuals use the same argument to excuse themselves from the verses from Leviticus that apply to them, but many Christians believe that the OT laws on sexual morality are still binding. The difference from the OT dietary restrictions is that the dietary restrictions, other than those maintained in Acts 15:20, were explicitly set aside in the NT. By contrast, the NT repeatedly condemns fornication, and many Bible scholars interpret the Greek word translated as &quot;fornication&quot; to include all forms of sexual immorality and thus to incorporate the OT sexual laws by reference. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:18, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: My friend DavidE, the prohibitions on charging interest for loans (usury), wearing garments of two types of fabric, etc., were not explicitly set aside in the NT. Do they still apply? In reality of course they only applied to the Jews when originally formulated, and non-Jews were never held to any of those laws ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:39, 8 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Plagiarism&diff=531463 2008-10-07T18:12:34Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Plagiarism and the law */</p> <hr /> <div>I think that this article needs expansion and clarification. There are many examples of plagiarism on Conservapedia, perhaps because editors are not aware of what exactly constitutes plagiarism. Copy-and-pasting articles from other websites without quotation marks is plagiarism, even if the source website is listed as a 'reference' or 'source'. If the words are not yours, they should be in quotation marks, and the source is preferably mentioned directly in the text in addition to a reference footnote that shows exactly where the material came from. Footnotes should also lead the reader directly to the page from which the material was taken, if possible. Directing someone to a general web page and making them drill down through multiple layers of links to find the page from which you quoted is ethically questionable, as it obscures the true source of your information. When quoting from a printed work, page numbers should be used to aid the reader in tracking down the citation.<br /> <br /> No doubt others will be able to give more concrete examples of how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism.[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:15, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Plagiarism means a fradulent claim of authorship in order to get academic credit. It's all about papers written for school. The standard encyclopedias (like Britannica, World Book, Encarta) do NOT cite their sources. It is not plagiarism because there is no academic claim being made, and no deception is practiced. We should follow the usual practices of encyclopedias, not the rules colleges lay down for freshman papers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:58, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::That's not really true. Plagiarism is using someone else's ideas and passing them off as your own. EB doesn't plagiarize, because they describe subjects, not ideas. They have an editorial board, so their description of a subject ''is'' an idea, and it's their own; not someone else's. However, if you use someone else's ''direct words'', with no quotation marks (or no other way to set it off as a direct quote), it is ''always'' plagiarism, whether it be found in a freshman paper, a senior thesis, a professional journal, or an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:35, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Plagiarism and the law ==<br /> <br /> I'm pretty sure plagiarism and copyright infringement are different beasts. Plagiarism is a failure to give credit where credit is due (cite, as in a paper). Copyright infringement is using copyrighted material without authorization or compensation. Plagiarism is against the academic code, but not the legal code. Vice versa for copyvio. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> : Nevermind -- I misunderstood your correction -- you're right. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:12, 7 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Plagiarism&diff=531457 2008-10-07T18:09:25Z

<p>Ungtss: /* Plagiarism and the law */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>I think that this article needs expansion and clarification. There are many examples of plagiarism on Conservapedia, perhaps because editors are not aware of what exactly constitutes plagiarism. Copy-and-pasting articles from other websites without quotation marks is plagiarism, even if the source website is listed as a 'reference' or 'source'. If the words are not yours, they should be in quotation marks, and the source is preferably mentioned directly in the text in addition to a reference footnote that shows exactly where the material came from. Footnotes should also lead the reader directly to the page from which the material was taken, if possible. Directing someone to a general web page and making them drill down through multiple layers of links to find the page from which you quoted is ethically questionable, as it obscures the true source of your information. When quoting from a printed work, page numbers should be used to aid the reader in tracking down the citation.<br /> <br /> No doubt others will be able to give more concrete examples of how to avoid inadvertent plagiarism.[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:15, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Plagiarism means a fradulent claim of authorship in order to get academic credit. It's all about papers written for school. The standard encyclopedias (like Britannica, World Book, Encarta) do NOT cite their sources. It is not plagiarism because there is no academic claim being made, and no deception is practiced. We should follow the usual practices of encyclopedias, not the rules colleges lay down for freshman papers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:58, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::That's not really true. Plagiarism is using someone else's ideas and passing them off as your own. EB doesn't plagiarize, because they describe subjects, not ideas. They have an editorial board, so their description of a subject ''is'' an idea, and it's their own; not someone else's. However, if you use someone else's ''direct words'', with no quotation marks (or no other way to set it off as a direct quote), it is ''always'' plagiarism, whether it be found in a freshman paper, a senior thesis, a professional journal, or an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:35, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Plagiarism and the law ==<br /> <br /> I'm pretty sure plagiarism and copyright infringement are different beasts. Plagiarism is a failure to give credit where credit is due (cite, as in a paper). Copyright infringement is using copyrighted material without authorization or compensation. Plagiarism is against the academic code, but not the legal code. Vice versa for copyvio. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Menstruation&diff=531450 2008-10-07T18:02:48Z

<p>Ungtss: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Menstruation''' occurs at the end of a [[placenta]]l [[mammal]]'s menstrual cycle. There are two types of menstruation:<br /> * Overt menstruation, occuring in [[human]]s and [[great apes]], in which the lining of the [[uterus]] is shed and expelled from the body to prepare the uterus for a fertilized [[ovum]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4 Menstruation and the Menstrual Cycle, from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services]&lt;/ref&gt;;<br /> * Covert menstruation, occuring in all other placental mammals, in which the [[endometrium]] is reabsorbed.<br /> <br /> ==Menstruation and the Bible==<br /> Under [[Old Testament]] law, a woman was to be put apart during menstruation:<br /> {{Bible quote|And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. <br /> |book=Leviticus|chap=15|verses=19-24|version=KJV}} <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Biology]]<br /> [[Category:Human Development]]</div>

Ungtss https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Menstruation&diff=531445 2008-10-07T17:54:30Z

<p>Ungtss: sp</p> <hr /> <div>'''Menstruation''' occurs at the end of a [[placenta]]l [[mammal]]'s menstrual cycle. There are two types of menstruation:<br /> * Overt menstruation, occuring in [[human]]s and [[great apes]], in which the lining of the [[uterus]] is shed and expelled from the body to prepare the uterus for a fertilized [[ovum]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4 Menstruation and the Menstrual Cycle, from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services]&lt;/ref&gt;;<br /> * Covert menstruation, occuring in all other placental mammals, in which the lining of the uterus is reabsorbed into the animal's body.<br /> <br /> ==Menstruation and the Bible==<br /> Under [[Old Testament]] law, a woman was to be put apart during menstruation:<br /> {{Bible quote|And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. <br /> |book=Leviticus|chap=15|verses=19-24|version=KJV}} <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Biology]]<br /> [[Category:Human Development]]</div>

Ungtss