Changes
/* Independent Observations */Default Sort
{{Unofficial}}
Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:
# Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
# Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
# Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to Many administrators do not writing any articles, only talking & blockingengage in productive article creation.
# Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
# Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
# Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).
# Creationists are willing to buck common knowledge, expert opinion, and the laws of physics just to get to the preferred result. They then claim to be objective.
# Creationists oftentimes prefer to deliberately spin facts, widely publicize known half-truths, and lie outright to gain popular support. This has been widely documented, a textbook example being immoral creationist [[Kent Hovind]].
== Independent Observations ==
# Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
# Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.
For a counterpoint, please see [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]], to which this essay is (in its first part) a point-by-point response.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Essays]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia}}
