Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see Conservapedia:Community Portal.

Archive Index

Contents 1 4th grade's poor academic performance 2 Wisconsin Primary 3 Man's "downhill genetic slide" 4 Did Obama Lie To Harvard Law School To Obtain Fraudulant Loans Or Grants? Or Was Obama Born In Kenya? 5 Only liberals are capable of doing something as stupid as THIS 6 Wimpy atheist alert 7 New news: NC Teacher yells at students saying that it's criminal to speak badly about Obama 8 注意! 9 Facebook 10 Reading Speed

4th grade's poor academic performance

Wut? Are you sure that it was due to the 4th grader's performance? From what I gleaned, it appeared that the standardized grading system was made a little bit harder, possibly causing the students to underestimate the difficulty of the examination. I'm not saying that the results were acceptable; I think that any 4th grader should be able to back up their thesis with logical statements, but still, it does not appear to be the fault of video games, or Facebook. Public schools, on the other hand... pick up your slack, please.brenden 23:33, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

I agree with you. They did make the scoring tougher. Facebook is for only for 13+ and video games should have affected scores by now since they have a 40 year history. JonnyAmerican 07:58, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Wisconsin Primary

Wisconsin has already voted I thought. Gregkochuconn 13:00, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Man's "downhill genetic slide"

Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"? I can't seem to find any published genomic evidence corroborating this claim. I can easily find ample evidence of genetic drift in human populations following predicted models (two separate sources and links provided), and even evidence that many alleles in the human genome have recently been (and still may be, to some degree) under selective pressure (selective pressure, of course, has the side-effect of weeding out deleterious mutations--which is exactly the opposite of what a "downhill genetic slide" would predict). Additionally, I can even find evidence of novel human genes (for instance brain development genes) emerging from preexisting genes over human evolutionary history. However, in spite of an exhaustive search, there appears to be no evidence (in the primary research) of "human genetic entropy". If there is any primary research to this effect, I would be very much interested in seeing it. --JHunter 13:10, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Contact the biologist John Sanford at Cornell University as he has written extensively on this matter as indicated in the article cited. Plus, buy his book on this matter or get it from the library. By the way, John Sanford endorsed the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 18:04, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

Sanford has published relatively few peer-reviewed papers in academic journals since the late 1980s. However, I did take the time to find and read a few of them before posting this reply. Sanford's primary hypothesis that "low-impact" deleterious alleles will be under so little selective pressure that they will accumulate in a population has been very thoroughly addressed and discarded. Outside of a few conveniently-manipulated computer models, the evidence simply does not support that this happens in nature (and many scientists have looked for it). That said, it is known that many common deleterious alleles in the human genome became common in human populations simply because they are closely linked with more adaptive allelic variations and, by this mechanism, "hitchhike" their way into the genetic background of a population (just as current models of natural selection would predict). I must stress, however, that neither of these hypotheses, nor any published evidence, suggests that deleterious mutations are accumulating faster in the human genome than natural selection, or (in the case of low-impact mutations) simple stochastic genetic drift, is clearing them out. --JHunter 19:21, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Also, it is worth pointing out, for irony's sake, that John Sanford's whole hypothesis hinges on a rather esoteric statistical anomaly found in certain models of natural selection acting on allele frequencies over evolutionary timescales. Far from being a refutation of modern evolutionary theory, Sanford's hypothesis relies on it. --JHunter 19:39, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, it is worth pointing out that your evobabble is not going to reverse the worldwide decline of atheism in terms of it losing adherents nor is it going to find the countless millions of missing link fossils.[1] See: Global atheism. According to Gordon-Conwell Theoological Seminary there will be 800 less atheists by the end of the day and 83,000 more people who consider themselves Christians.[2] By the way, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that unlike atheism, biblical Christianity has a great abundance of evidence to support it. See: Christian apologetics and Evidence for Christianity. Conservative 20:31, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I noticed on your userpage that you claim to hold the worldview of agnosticism. I wanted to add that according to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary there will be 1,100 less non-religious people (agnostics) by the end of the day and 83,000 more people who call themselves Christians.[3] Do you have any proof and evidence that agnosticism is a valid worldview? The reason I ask is that unlike agnosticism, biblical Christianity has a great abundance of evidence to support it. See: Christian apologetics and Evidence for Christianity. Conservative 21:25, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Eh? What does that have anything to do with the argument I was making? I was making the point that there is absolutely no evidence for "genetic entropy" in human (or really any) populations. I was not discussing any other points, least of all my own religious views. I have, along with other users here, addressed many those points before; incidentally, you didn't really address those arguments either. Furthermore, the "evobabble" above is a rather plain-language discussion of the available evidence as it relates to the possibility of "genetic entropy"; whether or not atheism or Christianity are true, and the worldwide number of adherents to either, is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --JHunter 21:59, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, you seemed to place importance on peer review. I was just curious how you felt about 1,100 of your non-religious (agnostic) peers in the world leaving this worldview due to death or switching to another worldview. Because everyday there are about 1,100 less non-religious people (agnostics) in the world while Christendom with its abundance of evidence concerning its veracity is seeing tremendous growth.[4] By the way, I did notice that you failed to provide proof and evidence that agnosticism is true. Plus, you failed to provide the countless millions of missing link fossils.[5] Conservative 22:54, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Once again, those are not points which I was arguing. I do not need to prove that agnostocism is true in order to argue that there is no "genetic entropy" in human populations--those are two completely unrelated concepts. Additionally, there is a huge difference between academic peer-review and argumentum ad populum.--JHunter 23:19, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.[6] It seems as though many academics are doing a poor job, doesn't it? It seems as if you place an inordinate amount of value on the process of academic review. Also, given the foolishness of agnosticism, it is not surprising that you are doing such a poor job at defending it. Lastly, your evobabble is not likely to cause an evolutionism revival given your inability to produce the millions of missing link transitional fossils. [7] Conservative 00:01, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

How does this relate to the point I was making? --JHunter 00:48, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, are you willing to face the 15 questions for evolutionists in a internet radio debate with Shockofgod and a creationist biology college student? The debate room is located HERE and it is open right now (most of the time it is open to the public). Shockofgod can record the debate. The reason I ask is that the all the previous debates turned out quite badly for the evolutionists. See also: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debatesConservative 01:37, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, could you please answer the original question without further ado: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"?

Thanks, --AugustO 05:13, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, are you willing to face the 15 questions for evolutionists in a internet radio debate with Shockofgod and a creationist biology college student? The debate room is located HERE and it is open right now (most of the time it is open to the public). Shockofgod can record the debate. The reason I ask is that the all the previous debates turned out quite badly for the evolutionists. See also: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. We both know the debate would not go well for you so I will not surprised if you fail to accept the debate offer. By the way, seeing you are a German evolutionists, let this film clip be a reminder to you that American creationists have historically prevailed against German evolutionists in battles. :) Conservative 10:44, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, could you please answer the original question without further ado: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"?

Thanks again, --AugustO 11:13, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, feel free to accept the above debate offer. Conservative 11:51, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

There is no debate if you are not able to stick to the topic. In this case the topic can be seen by looking at the title of the section. I don't want to impose my will on you, I just would like you to answer the original question without further ado: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"?

--AugustO 11:34, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

August, let me know when you are ready to accept the above debate offer. Thank you. Conservative 11:51, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

You can always invite me to a debate on my talk page: that would be the appropriate place. In this section the question is: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"? And I would appreciate your answer to this question (and this question alone). Thanks, AugustO 13:01, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

I would not consent to debate "shockofgod" for a number of reasons. Notably, the current understanding of evolution is quite complex (it is a synthesis of several different fields), and requires a discussion on the intricacies of many relatively recent scientific discoveries. Seeing as both you, User:Conservative, and "shockofgod" have repeatedly displayed a dismal understanding of even the most basic scientific concepts (e.g. the scientific method), not to mention an incredible inability to stick to logical arguments (or even stay on topic in an individual discussion), I doubt that such a debate would be productive. Furthermore, scientific discourse requires a systematic step-wise discussion of empirical evidence (you don't simply "take on" a big idea in a debate format), which neither you, User:conservative, nor "shockofgod" seem capable of doing (as demonstrated above). You have had the opportunity to participate in such a stepwise discussion before, but failed to produce any evidence (or even any substantive arguments) supporting your position.--JHunter 16:42, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

As a compromise, I would be willing to participate in a debate with shockofgod if creationists are able to satisfactorily respond (that is, address the actual arguments presented, instead of responding to the "straw man" arguments addressed in the links posted by User:Conservative) to 6 out of 15 of the questions posted on Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. The ball is in your court. --JHunter 16:42, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, biblical creationism and global Christianity are growing in the world while the ideologies of evolutionism/atheism/agnosticism are growing weaker and weaker relatively speaking.[8] For example, in the UK (which is the birthplace of Darwinism), much to the chagrin of the cowardly evolutionist Richard Dawkins and the cowardly British Humanist Society (see: Atheism and cowardice), creationism and evangelical Christianity are both growing in the UK while the prominent evolutionists/atheists in the UK hide in their intellectual bunny holes [9][10] (see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates). In addition, some Question evolution! campaign supporters are about to go on a major offensive against Darwinism given a Question evolution campaign booklet and book are on their way to being completed. [11] Accordingly, I very much doubt that some compromise by some nameless and likely obscure evolutionist is going to have much appeal at this time to creationists. I suggest coaxing some prominent evolutionists out of their intellectual bunny holes and offering a far more appealing debate offer. Conservative 19:23, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

If you have so much evidence on your side, addressing real evidence-based arguments should be easy to do. Evidence speaks for itself, no matter who is using it.--JHunter 22:10, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, in terms of evidential support and expansion of adherents I clearly have shown that biblical Christianity and biblical creationism are sitting in the cat bird seat, while evolutionism and agnosticism are losing traction in the world (for example, creationism and evangelical Christianity are expanding even in the UK the homeland of Darwinism).[12][13][14] I suggest debating Shockofgod on the 15 questions for evolutionists while he is still willing to debate you! :) Conservative 00:22, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Linking to websites on Christian apologetics (which is all that your article does) does not equate to providing evidence of divine creation. I do not dispute that there is some historical truth to the bible--there is ample archaeological evidence to support that claim. Just as, along a similar line of reasoning, there is archaeological evidence to support that the Trojan war actually happened and that the Roman republic was founded after the expulsion of Etruscan monarchs. However, evidence of a few historical truths is not evidence that the entire bible is literally true, much less evidence of divine creation. Furthermore, number of adherents to a belief has absolutely no bearing on whether said belief represents objective truth (so, for the last time, please stop parroting that painfully insipid argument). If you have legions of supporters, as you claim, you should have no trouble rallying one or two of them to come to this wiki in their spare time to provide evidence in support of their position. --JHunter 02:16, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I referred you to a source which offers a vast amount of evidence for biblical Christianity through its cited sources. In addition, I provided this resource which gives evidence for Christianity: Christian apologetics. On the other hand, you haven't offered one iota of proof and evidence that agnosticism is a valid worldview. Second, you might not like the fact that around the world the non-religious (agnostic) worldview is collapsing and creationism is expanding in the world and in the UK (the homeland of Darwinism), nevertheless it is true. So don't be surprised if creationists feel no pressing need to debate someone who is unwilling to be slaughtered in a debate concerning the 15 questions for evolutionists by Shockofgod (we both know that you would be slaughtered in such a debate).

You might as well face it: a Bible believing Christian can afford to relax on a Caribbean beach on his vacation listening to Caribbean music knowing full well that the non-religious (agnostic) worldview and evolutionism is being eroded around the world while biblical Christianity and biblical creationism is growing around the world.[15] He certainly doesn't have to worry about an agnostic who is unwilling to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists. Hey non-religious (agnostic) mon, all day and all night the non-religious (agnostic) worldview keeps on shrinking while biblical Christianity and biblical creationism keep growing. Hey evolution mon, it's time to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists while Shockofgod is still willing to! Conservative 03:35, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

re: JHunter: I wasn't impressed by the information/speculation that JHunter gave which attempted to rebut this article. Also, to test his sincerity, I asked him to defend his so-called agnosticism and to defend his evolutionary beliefs using the yardstick of the 15 questions for evolutionists which address several of the central claims of macroevolution. Needlessly to say, I wasn't shocked by his inability to defend agnosticism and evolutionism. Lastly, here are some additional resources concerning the issue of genetic entropy: Genetic entropy and Genetic entropy and Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book and Review of J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome and Genetic entropy: a literal fall from perfection. Also, here are a few videos: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 and Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 2/2 Conservative 22:05, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

I just discovered evolutionist Michael Lynch admitting this in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation (taken from the abstract): "Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed." [16] Conservative 22:18, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Thank you for the source. That was along the lines of what I was looking for. I read the paper you referenced and, while I do have many criticisms, Lynch's hypothesis of increased accumulation of deleterious alleles in industrialized populations certainly seems plausible. However, it is important to note (as Lynch demonstrates and acknowledges in this paper) that this increase is due to the greatly reduced effect of natural selection on industrialized human populations. --JHunter 12:27, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, you haven't convinced me that you believe natural selection, mutations and other natural processes can achieve the astounding feats you purport and your unwillingness to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists with Shockofgod tells me you are just another evolutionists who is afraid of being embarrassed before a large audience. Hence, you evolved into a chicken. Conservative 18:08, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

?--JHunter 01:44, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

It is an established pattern with evolutionists and skeptics - see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and Atheism and cowardice. I have come to the conclusion that most of the defenders of evolution/atheism/agnosticism are merely posers and not confident. Conservative 03:58, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

Rather than just simply quote-mining a source, it would probably be best if you read the whole thing first. For instance, the essay you cite, by Eugenie C Scott, goes on to explain why "the evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format." Similarly, the paper you cited above by Michael Lynch does not present any primary research, it simply presents a hypothesis which is explained, in the text of the paper, to be a potential byproduct of modern technology removing selective pressure from industrialized human populations. Neither of these sources corroborates either of your deliberate misinterpretations of them. You have illustrated why I (and I know that I speak for many "evolutionists" when I say this) am not particularly open to debating the "15 questions"; it is extremely unlikely, given past creationist behavior, that such a debate would be academic and focused on objective discussion of available evidence. --JHunter 17:14, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, you know you can't survive in a equal playing field. Your "excusitis" as far as not debating Shockofgod and/or other Question evolution! supporters here in a recorded debate that will be distributed to his 20,000 plus subscribers is not fooling anyone. You should just admit you are a chicken when it comes to debate like Penn Jillette did. Conservative 21:16, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, by the way, I do find your allegation of the improper use of quotes rather humorous. I say this because Eugenie Scott whom you quoted about creation vs. evolution debates engaged in a short internet radio debate with Andy Schlafly on the creation vs. evolution issue. So she is not the most consistent person. Plus, if time were really the issue, evolutionists would ask for longer debate formats like the Lincoln-Douglass debates for example and not merely make excuses why they lost debate after debate with creation scientists.

But time is not really the issue as evolutionists don't need a lot of time as they have no bona fide evidence which makes them extremely vulnerable in debates. If Eugenie Scott were confident in her evolutionary beliefs she would ask for a series of long debates with leading creation scientists similar to the Lincoln - Douglass debates in format and the debates could be videotaped and widely distributed. Since she certainly would benefit from such debates if the evidence were on her side. But of course, she knows it is not and would never agree to such a thing. Conservative 22:09, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

User: Conservative, I generally stay away from the creationism-evolution thing here but "Darwinism can't even obtain strong traction in its homeland of the UK among the populace after 150 years" is just plain wrong. There is little debate about evolution and its various theories because its a given; its taught in schools - private and public, religious and secular - its the standard in museums and books. Darwin even appears on our banknotes. Rafael

The general "party line" among most people in the life sciences is to not engage in such a debate. It is an unspoken agreement that exists not out fear of losing, but out of the pragmatic realization that the "evolutionist" debater would have to expend too much energy (not to mention, debate time) explaining many fundamental concepts (each of which usually occupies several hour-and-a-half long lectures in a college-level introductory biology course, because of the abundance of evidence) to an audience without adequate background in the life sciences to understand the nuances of the arguments presented. This turns into a pretty significant disadvantage when debating an opponent who is free to fabricate facts, misrepresent evidence, and argue with glaring logical fallacies (as creationists are apt to do) to an uncritical audience. To illustrate this point, I need only reference the above discussion on "genetic entropy", in which a certain right-leaning user freely and repeatedly argues using non sequitur and argumentum ad populum arguments.

I listened to the discussion between Andy Schlafly and Eugenie Scott. My impression after listening to it was that Eugenie Scott had "won" (it wasn't really a formal debate), or at least made a more articulate and academic case, even if she was too busy providing background information to the interviewer to directly respond to any of Andy's rather inane arguments (that bit about the "open-mouthed bear" couldn't be further from the truth--and, yes, the first link talks about both the evidence and the relative abundance of transitional whale fossils!!!).

Regardless, most of us "evolutionists" in academia are of the opinion that if a person truly wants to learn about evolutionary theory (even if it's with the intended purpose of refuting evolution, a task for which a basic understanding of evolution seems logically required), they are more than welcome to attend a public lecture on the topic or audit an introductory biology course at a local university or community college (at many public institutions, this can be done free of charge or, if not, at a nominal fee). If, having done so, they are prepared to participate in an honest intellectual discussion of the evidence, most of us academics in the "evolutionist" camp would be more than happy to debate them. --JHunter 09:08, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, your word to substance ratio was very low in your last post. :) Of course, this is not surprising since the internet content of atheists/agnostics has been a tremendous failure. When you lack proof and evidence that atheism/agnpsticism is true and you face a tremendous amount of evidence for Christianity, failure is the inevitable result. Conservative 02:28, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

Did Obama Lie To Harvard Law School To Obtain Fraudulant Loans Or Grants? Or Was Obama Born In Kenya?

This is story says so much about the mainstream media, and quite possibly so much more about Obama: Barack Obama Literary Agent From 1991 - 2007: 'Born In Kenya And Raised In Indonesia And Hawaii' DerekE 22:38, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

Only liberals are capable of doing something as stupid as THIS

Obviously the Duffys are upset. But the state officials have a point, too:

DCR Commissioner Edward Lambert said, "Nobody wants to close an ice-cream stand and certainly not on Mother's Day weekend. It's unfortunate the timing was such. But I didn't want the story to be that some kids ate asbestos-laden ice cream."

The interior of the stand, which is inside a barn built in 1910, was expanded in order to show tour groups a video about the dairy-farm industry. Lambert said he was concerned the barn could contain hazardous materials, such as lead and asbestos, because of its age.

Tests have been conducted at the site in recent days, and Lambert said the results are likely to come in Friday. On Thursday afternoon, state officials gave the Duffys a list of steps they must complete before the stand can reopen.

AugustO 23:20, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Wimpy atheist alert

Wimpy atheists whine to Creation Ministries International (CMI), but it doesn't look like CMI or its supporters are going to shut down their creation evangelism and Christian evangelism efforts.[17][18]

Atheists, are you upset that global atheism was shrinking by 400 atheists a day in 2011 and now it is shrinking by 800 atheists a day while global Christianity is seeing explosive growth?[19][20] Atheist crybabies, would you like some cheese to go with your atheist whines?[21][22] Conservative 07:46, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

Very nice, Mr. Conservative. Very classy. You certainly do know how to maintain the intellectual level of debate around these parts. JanW 18:54, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

Question: Since when have atheists been intellectually edifying in terms of having a coherent and evidentially based worldview? Answer: Never. Atheists have excelled in mass murder, immorality/lying and spouting irrationality though (See: Irreligion and superstition and Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception and Atheism and Christian apologetics and Causes of atheism) Conservative 19:05, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

JanW, have you seen THIS and THIS yet? :) Conservative 23:05, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, I followed the link to the article at creation.com: "Skeptics who refuse to reveal their name — do they have something to hide, or something to fear?" Could you as an evolution-skeptic answer this question? AugustO 08:36, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't think User:Conservative has anything to fear, so he must just be hiding. Then again, why hide if you're not afraid? WilcoxD 02:17, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I have a hunch that the answer to this may be something to do with Sun Tzu.--CPalmer 04:56, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

New news: NC Teacher yells at students saying that it's criminal to speak badly about Obama

[23] This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard about schools. This should go on the Main Page news. JonnyAmerican 10:07, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

Sounds like a poe to me. brenden 23:08, 21 May 2012 (EDT)^{The thought police!}

注意!

你知道吗, 世界上 的 语言 来自非洲? 我不知道 什么 CMI 说 的, 但 我 知道 语言 哪里 起源.brenden 22:26, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

What is widely considered the "cradle of civilization"? Was it HERE? Of course, this is perfectly in accordance with where the Bible indicates man was created in terms of proximate location.

You might as well face it, many evolutionists such as yourself have a poor grasp of the social science of history. If evolutionists/atheists/agnostics such as yourself understood history better, you would better understand the importance of trends and would see that resistance is futile.[24][25][26]

Because the members of your ideological camp often have such a poor grasp of history, often they have a poor grasp of their place in history in terms of historical context and poorly understand your opposition as well.

知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必殆 Conservative 20:59, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

你的中文太可怕了! 你應該學習一些中文前说这些笨蛋话. 我不知道你在说什么怎么说服我们.brenden 13:56, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Facebook

I had read the article cited from the news page. At the very end of the article it says exactly what I was thinking, "...Of course, it’s not Facebook’s fault it’s being dragged through divorce court, he says, “It’s the people who use it.” Blaming facebook is like blaming the gun and not the owner of the gun. Facebook isn't forcing anyone into adultery. --DanJG 17:58, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

A very good point! When used in moderation, Facebook and other social networking sites can be a great way to stay in touch with old friends/classmates/co-workers and even conveniently communicate (the Facebook message being more casual than the e-mail) with people whom you see regularly. If some people abuse this resource, that's their prerogative, and they'll have to live with the consequences of doing so; but Facebook is hardly to blame for their selfish impulses. --JHunter 08:27, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Facebook is liberal trash that should not be used: it has resulted in suicides, bouts in divorce court, and lower grades for students in school. This is shown by the plummeting of Facebook stock, despite all the hype from the lamestream media. --James Wilson 11:12, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Facebook is to blame for suicides, divorces and lower grades? How does plummeting stock show this? I figured plummeting stock was due to the Facebook's unknown income sources. As for blaming a website for one's personal choices.. seems like we need a little bit of accountability on our own end. The website didn't force you to cheat. The website didn't put the gun in your hand and the website didn't tell you not to study. Those are all personal choices. Blaming a website, with such venom, for your poor personal choices seems like a childish thing to do. That's just my opinion. --DanJG 13:38, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Reading Speed

I want to say two things about this:

1) I got 33% faster than average after a couple tries

2) Why would reading speed show if you went to public school or not? Everyone has different reading speeds. Both of my parents went to public school as kids but my dad can read pretty fast and my mom reads slowly.

JonnyAmerican 11:04, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

"I got 33% faster than average after a couple tries". Of course. Also, public schools have many illiterate students and students who do not read well, thanks to liberal insistence of removing phonics and support of memorization. --James Wilson 11:13, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I got 2% over average without any other tries. I guess it would make sense that my parents would be better of since they did school in the 80s and 90s, not the 2000s JonnyAmerican 11:22, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

On that same topic...

The majority of high school graduates in the United States graduate having attended public schools (most with unionized teachers) for their entire K-12 education, and it has been this way for almost a century. From this pool of graduates, the United States has drawn many of its most brilliant scientists, entrepreneurs, artists, and innovators. Many of whom came from family backgrounds where, without public education, they would have had no access to any formal education at all--much less the opportunity to contribute to this country in the ways that they have.

While it is true that the public educational system in the United States is very far from perfect, nationwide public high school completion rates have remained on a steady upward trend since at least the early 1970s, as well as a a steady upward trend in the number of public high school graduates who go on to earn a college degree (same source as before). And while it is true that educational achievement and educational attainment in the United States are lagging behind that of other developed nations, neither teachers unions (which are ubiquitous, and more influential, in every country that outperforms us in any metric of student achievement) nor the teachers are to blame. If anything, the internecine politicization of education and lack of adequate funding for essential programs (e.g. free or reduced price lunches for students with indigent parents) and resources, especially in poorer public school districts, are the root cause for the United States' achievement gap.

Let's not forget that the United States pays its teachers less and works its teachers more than every country outperforming us in student achievement. Teachers in this country are expected to do more work (more hours and, due to budget cuts, larger class sizes) with fewer resources than they are in any other first-world country. People who object to a public school teacher making 100k a year (which happens so rarely, it's newsworthy in and of itself) should remember that said teacher almost certainly holds an advanced degree--schools pay more for more qualified teachers--and at least a few decades of teaching experience (the one teacher at my public high school who made >80k/year had a PhD in his field and had been teaching at my school for almost forty years--he retired the year after I graduated). Far from "gouging the taxpayers", this is a way of fairly compensating the men and women tasked with the vital job of preparing the next generation for their adult lives. Not to mention that teacher pay is positively correlated with student achievement; implying that paying teachers fairly (which is one of the major objectives of teachers unions) may be the surest way of investing in the future so that current and future generations may continue to enjoy American prosperity.

Sorry for posting such a lengthy rant, but I'm going into work late today and I found the "putting liberals to the test" section on the main page to be terribly offensive and disparaging to a hard-working and hugely under-appreciated profession; thus, having the time, I felt compelled to comment. --JHunter 11:17, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I agree with you, even when I'm not liberal. JonnyAmerican 11:22, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

The passage I got was from Alice in Wonderland, so I clicked the button after six seconds and got all the questions right, giving me a score of 1000% faster than average. Forget reading speed, there's no substitute for being well-read and knowledgeable.--CPalmer 12:08, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Yeah. I did that too with a Wizard of Oz passage and I got a score of 16,189% above average! JonnyAmerican 12:13, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I was in Shockofgod's free chat room located HERE and an atheist/agnostic libertarian discussed literary rates before public schools in the United States. If anyone wants to do a little research on this, I and no doubt others would be interested in this. Also, I think one can plausibly declared that the more Bible centered a particular Western country has been in a given era, the more literate a country was because in order to understand the Bible it certainly helps to be able to read it. Conservative 12:41, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Here is the book that the libertarian in Shockofgod's free chat room cited and I take it from a forum at Mises.org from a user by the name of Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

"In The Transformation of the American Economy, Robert Higgs touches upon the subject,

In 1870 about 90 percent of adult white Americans could read and write; by 1910, 95 percent possessed these basic skills. For obvious reasons, literacy was much less prevalent among the nonwhite population - predominately blacks - but improvement was rapid. In 1870 only about 20 percent of the adult nonwhite population was literate; by 1910 the proportion had increased to 70 percent. (p. 34.)

The determining issue was the increase in leisure hours, made possible by the vast improvement in productivity between 1879 and 1910."[27]

HERE is a brief history of public school education in the United States. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation occurred in 1863 in the United States and the American Civil War ended in 1865 to give some additional perspective. Also, the Reconstruction Era of the United States was from 1865 to 1877 following the Civil War of the United States to give some further historical perspective.

I do understand that literacy is merely a basic skill, but it seems as if many public schools in the United States are presently failing to instill this basic skill and are drop out factories. Conservative 12:55, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Here is an excerpt from a 2009 USA Today news story: "A long-awaited federal study finds that an estimated 32 million adults in the USA — about one in seven — are saddled with such low literacy skills that it would be tough for them to read anything more challenging than a children's picture book or to understand a medication's side effects listed on a pill bottle."[28] Conservative 13:34, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter wrote: "Let's not forget that the United States pays its teachers less and works its teachers more than every country outperforming us in student achievement." I have no problem with teachers getting paid well as long as they are performing well. And with that being said, is this true? Does Norway for example, pay their teacher's more and have a higher literacy rate? Here is a listing of countries by literacy rates: CIA fact book - literacy rates. Also, never was it declared that teachers were the sole issue in terms of America's underperforming schools as a schools ability to teach is presently the result of federal/state governments, the parents and communities, administrators, teacher unions and teachers.

One thing that appears to be happening is that education seems to be funded more in the United States by government than in the past, but achieving less results which suggests that how the money is allocated (administrative/school cost vs. teacher cost) and/or content/manner of teaching and/or the readiness of students entering school is a problem in the United States.

Personally, I agree with John Stossel that the money following the students via money given the parents and parents can freely decide which school to send their kids to (public or private) like in Belgium is better than how things are being presently done is America so there would be more competition. According to John Stossel most countries which allow more school choice outperform the United States (the money attached to the students). Conservative 14:19, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

From an article here:

In Puritan New England this seems to have been particularly evidenced. In The Intellectual Life of New England Samuel Eliot Morison notes that Boston Latin was "the only public school down to 1684, when a writing school was established; and it is probable that only children who already read were admitted to that . . . . they must have learned to read somehow, since there is no evidence of unusual illiteracy in the town. And a Boston bookseller’s stock in 1700 includes no less than eleven dozen spellers and sixty-one dozen primers." [3]

Robert A Peterson[5] argues,

For two hundred years in American history, from the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s,...America produced several generations of highly skilled and literate men and women who laid the foundation for a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and self-government. The private system of education in which our forefathers were educated included home, school, church, voluntary associations such as library companies and philosophical societies, circulating libraries, apprenticeships, and private study. It was a system supported primarily by those who bought the services of education, and by private benefactors. All was done without compulsion. Although there was a veneer of government involvement in some colonies, such as in Puritan Massachusetts, early American education was essentially based on the principle of voluntarism.[6]

Some contend that in colonial America literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.[10] Ruth Wallis Herndon, in Literacy among New England's transient poor, 1750-1800, states that by using different sources, a number of "historians have discovered a nearly universal literacy among New England men and varying levels of literacy among New England women in the latter part of the eighteenth century."[11]

Also of note is the place the Bible had in early American education, regardless of the angst that produces among those who hold to extremes views on the Separation of church and state Glory to God. May i read and meditate it upon more. Daniel1212 07:26, 24 May 2012 (EDT)