Talk:Main Page/Archive index/105

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Occupy Wall Street raided by NYPD

November 15th, 2011, 1:20 AM EST the NYPD came into Liberty Square with full riot gear and bulldozers and are attempting to drive out the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The police has received immense amounts of peaceful resistance, with protesters chanting statements such as "This is what a police state looks like". The police have also closed down the Brooklyn Bridge and several subway stops due to the raids. Right now (November 15th, 2011, 1:27 AM EST), the protesters haven't shown any violent resistance. Snipers have been spotted in buildings surrounding the protesting area, and police & news helicopters are flying overhead. The protesters are trying all they can to peacefully resist the police raid and continue with the movement. For a live report on what is currently happening at the Occupy Wall Street protests, visit the website: http://occupywallst.org/article/nypd-raiding-liberty-square/ - (User: TokichiAdams November 14, 2011, 10:30 PM PST)

Posted on the front page. Thanks for the tip.--Andy Schlafly 01:44, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Wall Street brings in a lot of cash to New York City and New York State. In addition, Mayor Bloomberg owns Bloomberg E.T (owns "Bloomberg Business News"). Plus, there have been reports of people doing violent/inappropriate actions at the various Occupy protests. Anyone who didn't see this coming didn't have much foresight. Conservative 03:24, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Germans at the Polish parade

I'm not sure I understand the gist of the headline. Is there something particular about Germans that makes them enemies of freedom? Thanks. ScottDG 18:59, 12 November 2011 (EST)

It illustrates that provocateurs are moving around, even from nation to nation, to incite violence and threaten freedom.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 12 November 2011 (EST)


Horror at the Chinese persecution of Christians and boasting about "grinding atheism into a fine pulp."

Animated graphic taken from the blog post Question evolution! campaign volunteer recruitment drive is in gear and it will grind up atheism into a fine pulp.[1]

Interesting to see these two different attitudes towards violence and violent language being harnessed in disputes over religious belief within a few inches of each other. ScottDG 20:05, 12 November 2011 (EST)

The first is real, while the second is obviously a metaphor. We don't dumb everything down here like in public school.--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 12 November 2011 (EST)
Last time I checked, ideologies don't feel pain when they are metaphorically ground up in the marketplace of ideas nor do they leave any widows. Some atheists/evolutionists are so obsessed with atheism/evolutionism they actually believe their pet ideologies feel pain. :) Conservative 21:48, 12 November 2011 (EST)
I found a use for American atheism once it has been ground up into a fine pulp. See: What is Carefresh Pet Bedding Made Of Conservative 00:00, 13 November 2011 (EST)
ScottDG, atheism is already being ground into a fine pulp. See: Global atheism. The Question evolution campaign is merely going to cause the blades to spin faster. Plus, the cowardice of Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette and others is giving atheism a bigger reputation for cowardice which certainly does not help the atheist cause. Conservative 14:28, 21 November 2011 (EST)

God vs. an atheist nerd - Who wins?

"Did God create the universe or is an atheist nerd correct that the universe created by a parent universe (Multiverse Theory)?"

Why is it acceptable for sysops to use ad homenim attacks on the home page? ~~csmcmillion

Why is the sun a problem for evolutionists?

The theory of evolution is concerned with how living species adapt and change over time. Because the sun is an inanimate object, I'm pretty sure that it does not figure very prominently in many textbooks, studies, or scholarship about evolution. ScottDG 21:45, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Examine the links HERE and HERE and HERE Conservative 22:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)
None of those sources is from people who study evolution expressing concern about the sun. ScottDG 22:41, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Scott. you committed the genetic fallacy, the begging the question fallacy plus the fallacy of exclusion by not addressing the information. You clearly need assistance. I suggest going HERE and HERE Conservative 22:57, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I would be really interested to see a peer-reviewed paper in an academic journal published by a major American university in which someone who studies evolutionary biology, at a major American university, with a Ph.D. from a major American university, expresses concern about the effect that knowledge about the sun or any other celestial body has on the study of evolution. Can you provide me with a link, please? ScottDG 23:32, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Try reading this one [2], by Dr. Jonathan Henry, PhD, University of Kentucky. Karajou 23:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
That is not from a journal published by a major American university. Dr. Henry's Ph.D. is in engineering, not evolutionary biology, and he teaches at Christian Clearwater College, not a major American university. ScottDG 23:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Oh, so you're setting conditions as to who can write it, what doctoral level they should have, where the man works, and so on? It has to be a secular paper, reviewed to pass muster from like-minded secular scientists? It just cannot be done by anyone who happens to be a Christian? Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. Karajou 23:51, 13 November 2011 (EST)
I don't bring my car to an air-conditioner repairman. I don't go see a dentist when my knee hurts. I don't go to a piano teacher when I want drawing lessons, and I'm wary of the sushi in Mexican restaurants. ScottDG 23:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
That's good advice...always go to the people who know what they're talking about. And that includes the aforementioned Dr. Henry. Karajou 23:56, 13 November 2011 (EST)
There ScottDG goes again with his logical fallacies. Why don't you stop begging the question and show us that macroevolution exists? He who asserts, must prove. By the way, last time I checked, PhDs at American universities were not the sole font of human knowledge and wisdom nor have the shown themselves to be infallible so you can quit using the genetic fallacy. For example, I laugh at the number of Marxist economics professors which have staffed American universities. Conservative 23:57, 13 November 2011 (EST)
I'm staying resolutely on point. The sun. A single expression of concern about the sun from somebody who studies evolutionary biology at a major US university in a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship from a major US university. ScottDG 00:31, 14 November 2011 (EST)

By the way Scott, the Conservapedia evolution article cites PhD scientists st American universities speaking about the deficiencies within the evolutionary paradigm. For example, Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr. Conservative 00:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

Do they say anything about the sun? ScottDG 00:04, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Good point User:Conservative, however, I assert God does exist but I cannot prove it "He who asserts must prove" is not a good argument. Healthy debate is what is required and in User:ScottDG's case I have to agree with his point (although I do believe its the first time I have done such) Aortuso 00:02, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Don't you find it odd that the cite you gave me is from an engineer who teaches at a school that doesn't even have a graduate program? That the journal wasn't from one of the many top-ranked schools in the country (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford,Columbia, NYU, Rutgers, Michigan, Wisconsin, UCLA, Emory, Texas, Johns Hopkins, Florida, there are so many leading schools in the US)? If the sun is such a problem for evolutionary scientists, it should be relatively easy to find an evolutionary scientist at a major center of learning and research who has an opinion on the subject. ScottDG 00:03, 14 November 2011 (EST)
And you can't find it, why? Karajou 01:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Probably because there's nothing there, I reckon. Besides one engineer playing at being a biologist at a school that doesn't have a graduate program who doesn't have his findings published in a peer-reviewed journal published by a leading American school. ScottDG 01:16, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Go find it then. Prove to us that you have education enough to do some research on your own, because right now your half-handed dismissal of those who actually did disgusts me. Karajou 08:43, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Your response reminds me of an exchange I hear too often at sporting events: "Wow, I can't believe this guy, he's a horrible QB." "Really? Do you think you could do better?" No, of course I couldn't do better. That's why I'm not a professional football player. And I'm not going to present you with my research on evolutionary biology and the sun, because I am neither an evolutionary biologist nor am I an astronomer. And until a reputable evolutionary biologist at a reputable institution publishes findings in a reputable journal about the links between evolutionary biology and the sun, I will remain unconvinced that there is any sort of controversy there. ScottDG 09:57, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Well, then if you're not an evolutionary biologist or an astronomer, you're not qualified to talk about the subject at all, much less make demands on us. This so-called "debate" is over. Karajou 10:04, 14 November 2011 (EST)
SamHG, did the American academics from Harvard, Yale and Princeton give a stellar performance as far as warning about the 2008 financial crises compared to members of the Austrian school of economics?[3] I think the American academia genetic fallacy "foundation" of your "arguments" is crumbling fast. Conservative 00:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Did they say anything about the sun and evolution? ScottDG 00:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)

ScottDG, I think you should consider destroying that altar you have at home with the graven images of American academics. Yahweh and the Israeli army have a much better track record in terms of being successful. Also, American liberal academia's failure to predict 2008 financial crises is a prime example of the incompetence of many American academics. In addition, American higher education is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. 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.[4] ScottDg, if American academics are so brilliant, then why the failure to develop higher critical thinking skills within so many of their students? Conservative 00:58, 14 November 2011 (EST)

So, nothing about the sun and evolution, then? ScottDG 01:16, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Scott, would a young sun pose a problem for evolutionists or a sun which produced a inhospitable planet if naturalism was true? Setting aside the fact that evolutionists cannot find the countless millions of missing link fossils and that evolutionists have been unable to effectively deal with the irreducible complexity issue, according to evolutionists how much time do they desperately need for their evolutionary paradigm? Also, anytime you have a convincing solution to the faint sun paradox, please let us know. If the evolutionists have convincing solutions to the faint sun paradox, then why is it still a paradox? Conservative 16:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
You realize that the sun has produced eight inhospitable planets, right?. That has nothing to do with evolution. I am not interested in missing link fossils. My argument is that the sun is not something that evolutionary biologists really concern themselves with, as it is an inanimate object and therefore did not evolve, as they understand the term. Likewise, evolutionary biologists would not concern themselves with the "faint sun paradox," because that has nothing to do with studying how species change over time. ScottDG 19:19, 14 November 2011 (EST)
I have to agree with User:Conservative. However User:Karajou, you are very heavy handed in your responses just dismissing people. Also most impolite. To paraphrase a saying I may not agree with what ScottDG is saying but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.Aortuso 17:30, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Conservative, there exists fossils dating back some 3.2 billion years. If Earth were to suffer an inhospitable sun, then that would indeed prevent early life from forming, and in turn, prevent evolution. But the presence of these fossils suggest that this was not the case. As to your other points:
  • There are extensive (though non-exhaustive) lists of discovered transitional fossils online. It is unlikely that all the missing links will be found, but the implication that evolutionists are not finding them at all is false.
  • In regards to irreducible complexity, there are plenty of evolutionists out there willing to provide the answers you are looking for. I recommend looking into them, at least before claiming evolutionists lack compelling answers to the various issues raised.
  • The faint sun paradox is within the realm of astrophysicists, not evolutionists, and the reason why it is referred to as a paradox is because they don't know the answer yet. As ScottDG asserts, this isn't relevant the theory of evolution itself. maninahat 19:17, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Maninat, this video helps show that that the alleged evidence for evolution is paper thin and cannot withstand scrutiny.VIDEO The Bible: "The first to plead his case seems right, until another examines him." - Solomon Conservative 18:35, 14 November 2011 (EST)
I took the time to watch the series of videos. Youtuber "Onceforgiven" does not adequately scrutinise the responses to the 15 questions. During question part one for instance, He repeatedly claims "evolutionists can't provide a shred of evidence" in regards to the origin of life. He says this despite showing the huge lists of scientific studies and experiments into the field, provided by the evolutionist he is rebuking. Onceforgiven simply dismisses these studies; he does not count them as evidence for some reason (though he doesn't explain why). Similarly, after you claimed that evolutionists can't find the millions of missing link fossils that prove evolution, I am curious as to whether you went to the link I provided and looked at the lists of such discovered fossils. Will you still maintain that they can't find the missing links? Despite the fact that they do? Maninhat 11:42, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Excerpt from Conservapedia's Origin of life article: Dr. Walter Bradley said: "The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation."[3] Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the "immensity of the problem" for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, "At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."[3]

In 1996, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." [4] Even Stanley Miller of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in Scientific American that the "problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.[3] Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as "nonsense" and "paper chemistry".

In 1992, the popular magazine Scientific American published an interview which explored Francis Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.[19] American biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe wrote concerning the interview: "The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation."

For more information please see: Origin of life and Origin of life - Q and A Conservative 12:01, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Are Drs. Bradley and Horgan have anything to say about the sun? ScottDG 12:24, 15 November 2011 (EST)
ScottDG, I see you are no longer ranting about American academics and their publications. No doubt it is because that Maginot Line of "argumentation" was shown to be ineffective/spurious. By the way, the typical modus operandi of evolutionists will be totally ineffective against the grassroots Question evolution! campaign so get used to it. Conservative 15:41, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Not at all. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that tenured faculty who study evolutionary biology at a major American research university are at all concerned about the sun. I'm not interested in fossils or in the origin of life, but in the links between a way to explain how species change and develop and the sun. I am still waiting for evidence that acknowledged experts from top-tier American institutions who deal with the theory of evolution, which deals with the question of how species on earth change over time, are at all troubled by an inanimate object millions of miles away. Let me know when you find that. ScottDG 17:53, 15 November 2011 (EST)
I'm sorry, ScottDG, but Conservative here is right, and I understand his frustration. Obviously "evolutionary experts" will not admit holes in their beliefs. Your logic is circular. We don't need to be evolutionary experts to find holes in evolution.

NickP 20:35, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Except that the sun doesn't evolve. It's not alive. Evolutionary biologists don't study celestial bodies. ScottDG 20:39, 15 November 2011 (EST)
So there, you have your answer. If evolutionists do not study the sun, how can we expect them to say something about this? NickP 20:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Don't ask me. Ask the guy who wrote a headline claiming that the sun posed a problem for the theory of evolution. ScottDG 21:01, 15 November 2011 (EST)
I don't see your logic here. The headline stated that the presence of the sun was a counterexample of evolution. What does this have to do with expertise? NickP 21:07, 15 November 2011 (EST)
The headline stated that the sun was a problem for people who study the theory of evolution. My point is simply that the theory of evolution says nothing about inanimate celestial bodies, and has as little problem with the sun as it might have with an economic theory. ScottDG 21:26, 15 November 2011 (EST)

ScottDG, have you considered asking Aschlafly if you could change your username to the theblacknight? Conservative 20:02, 15 November 2011 (EST)

I would, but there's that whole "first-name-and-last-initial" thing to consider. ScottDG 20:18, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Scott, I would contact evolutionary biologists and ask them if they have considered whether or not there is enough time for their paradigm and whether a inhospitable past earth (faint sun paradox) would impinge on their evolutionary dogma. Anyways, evolutionism has already been intellectually defeated in many ways and now merely the mop up work of getting message out more has to be done. You might now want to hear it but the Question evolution! campaign is going to force you to develop a new hobby as defending evolutionary quackery is going be passé. Conservative 22:17, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Never heard of that campaign. Is anybody doing anything to publicize it? To get it on the listserves of the major universities or into an academic journal or something, maybe? ScottDG 22:54, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Scott, American universities and man's vain speculations will pass away, but the kingdom of God will last forever and ever. "For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." - the Apostle Paul ScottDB, why build your house on a foundation of atheists/evolutionists wood, hay and stubble that will be burned up, when you could build your house on a foundation of gold, silver and precious stones? Hell is forever. Build your house on the rock of Jesus and God's Word.Conservative 00:15, 16 November 2011 (EST)

I know I'm being utterly facetious and pedantic here, but I love that foundations analogy, conservative. Why build foundations out of economic, appropriate and sensible building materials like wood (i.e. evolution) when you can use inappropriate, ostentatious, and superficially attractive materials like gold (i.e. creationism)? For the sake of your argument, I think it would have made sense to have it the other way around.
With that out of the way, should I link you to the 3.2 billion year old fossils again? If the earth was genuinely inhospitable (which, let's be clear, isn't what the faint young Sun paradox tries to suggest), than those fossils could not have existed. Geologists have a fairly good understanding of the temperature from billions of years ago, and they know that the earth was not cold. That is why it is a paradox; because the earth wasn't cold despite the lower output of heat from the sun. Maninahat 14:54, 16 November 2011 (EST)

More evidence for earthquake claims re: frequency.

Unusual seismic activity in the Caribbean. ScottDG 09:44, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Very interesting. Thanks. I think Turkey had another earthquake also.--Andy Schlafly 00:21, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Adjectives vs Adverbs

I think we mean "hopelessly confused".--QPR 18:20, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Put it up late last night. Should have proofread it. Thanks. Conservative 20:58, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Why are evolutionists hopelessly confused about the moon?

So, have any evolutionary biologists from top-tier American university biology departments published peer-reviewed findings in scholarly journals about the moon lately? ScottDG 21:03, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Like the Sun issue, you are taking the headline literally. It basically means "Evolutionists should be confused". The Sun and Moon pose problems to evolutionists because they are a problem for evolution. NickP 21:57, 15 November 2011 (EST)
What meaningful definition of the theory of evolution is broad enough to include the study of inanimate objects many, many miles away from any living thing? The theory of evolution has nothing to say about things that aren't alive. ScottDG 22:00, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Evolution concerns life on Earth. Life on Earth is certainly affected by factors such as the Sun and the Moon. Conservative has repeatedly pointed out sources that highlight why the Sun and Moon serve as counterexamples to evolution. NickP 22:02, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Actually, I think NickP is (quite understandably) mistaken as to what this headline meant. It referred to an article published at Creation Ministries International, which has used 'evolution' and related terms in this context many times. I questioned the usage with regards to an article about the planet Saturn, to which I received this reply from Jonathan Sarfati:

Why don't you *prove* your claims about Saturn? Why should we just take your word for things?

You are also unreasonably restricting "evolution" to one of its branches, "biological evolution". In reality, if you have a problem, then you need to write to your fellow evolutionist Lawrence Lerner, who claimed:

‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’ (see http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner)

So let's see some science, as much as it would be a nice change with our detractors.

So in this and similar headlines the word 'evolutionist' does not refer to someone who supports the concept of Darwinian evoution, but more generally to anyone who thinks that the universe has reached its present state via a process of gradual change from an earlier state. --QPR 13:55, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Ah, my appologies. In that case this should be worded as a counterexample to the old Earth. NickP 23:20, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Health Care Law and Representatives?

Maybe someone else can explain this to me because I don't see the point. Why would we call our reps about a SCOTUS case? They have no say in the case nor should they. It just makes no sense to me. Anyone else? Ayzmo :) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (EST)

I think it is to simply encourage every conservative in America to participate in issues. Yes, congress technically can do nothing for a SCOTUS case, but the point here is to help compose a case against Obamacare. NickP 22:26, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Gambling story

So you can attack gambling as morally corrupt but when Obama does it it is a bad thing? MaxFletcher 23:07, 15 November 2011 (EST)

The link to the Conservapedia entry does not criticize Obama for his fleeting, one-time criticism of gambling in Vegas.--Andy Schlafly 23:15, 15 November 2011 (EST)
The article says nothing about a "fleeting," or "one-time." It says exactly the opposite, and calls gambling "the economic lifeblood" of a state: " "On more than one occasion, Obama verbally attacks the economic livelihood of Las Vegas for unknown reasons. The reason may be his contempt of gambling which is forbidden in the Koran."(Second-last of the bullet points here. ScottDG 23:43, 15 November 2011 (EST)
I would have thought that wherever his disdain for gambling comes from, it is an attitude that should be praised, even by Conservapedia. Surely Conservapedia does not take the approach that everything Obama says or does is wrong? Or is this not a conservative website, merely a Republican one? --DamianJohn 00:01, 16 November 2011 (EST)
I don't think Conservapedia criticizes Obama for his fleeting, negative reference(s) to gambling. If an entry here does, then let's look at it and clarify the wording.
As to the reference to "Republican" in the comment above, this site has criticized Republicans. A Main Page headline tonight even does.--Andy Schlafly 00:19, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Andy, see my comment above; Conservapedia argues that Obama has criticized gambling on more than one occasion, and called gambling the "lifeblood" of a state, as opposed to something that victimizes the poor. I know consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but the most recent headline read against the Conservapedia article linked to here is a pretty glaring contradiction. ScottDG 08:03, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Scott and Max, that really is a petty argument you are trying to make. Statistics prove poor families are affected the most by increased availability to gambling. In our criticism of Obama, support of Las Vegas gambling was not present. The pawn attempt is lame and the stance is not hypocritical. --Jpatt 12:29, 16 November 2011 (EST)

If gambling affects poor people the most, was Obama correct in pointing out on more that one occasion the problem of making it the economic lifeblood of a state? ScottDG 13:24, 16 November 2011 (EST)

(EC)His criticism of gambling is also seen as yet further "evidence" that he is a Muslim or has a Muslim agenda. It is obvious that he cannot win, regardless of whether he is saying things you agree with or not! --DamianJohn 13:25, 16 November 2011 (EST)
I think it is weird that criticizing gambling is evidence Obama is a Muslim and is a bad thing. Whereas Conservapedia makes the same criticism. MaxFletcher 14:26, 16 November 2011 (EST)
"On more than one occasion, Conservapedia verbally attacks the economic livelihood of Las Vegas for unknown reasons. The reason may be their contempt of gambling which is forbidden in the Koran." If we can all agree that gambling hurts the poor, can we at least remove that piece from the Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage article? EricAlstrom 17:55, 16 November 2011 (EST)
We don't censor facts that have obvious political and historical significance. This is not a matter of whether one approves or disapproves of gambling. Obama occasionally criticized it and that is relevant to political or historical analysis.--Andy Schlafly 23:46, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Yes, granted. But what is the significance of Obama saying something negative about gambling to him being a Muslim/having a Muslim heritage? --DamianJohn 23:53, 16 November 2011 (EST)
The significance is obvious: gambling, like wine, is prohibited in Islam. If Obama had criticized the serving of meat at a formal dinner on Friday during Lent, then that would have significance if there was a claim that he were Catholic.--Andy Schlafly 00:03, 17 November 2011 (EST)
With respect, the significance is not obvious at all. Let me put it this way, I have been a strong anti-gambling person for many years, after seeing first-hand the damage it can cause to families. I have been on 2 anti-gambling protest marches, 1 to oppose the expansion of a casino, and another to limit the number of pokie machines where I live. I doubt, however that you or anyone else would use this as evidence for me being a Muslim. In fact the idea is laughable as I am clearly not Muslim. Attach similar facts to someone you oppose however and this becomes evidence for that person's Muslim heritage. I really hope you don't dig your toes in here on this one Andy, perhaps your mind is not as open as you would like to see in others (Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness. Can you see that Obama's opposition to gambling is probably not because of something it says in the Qu'ran? --DamianJohn 00:35, 17 November 2011 (EST)
The flaw in your argument is that you are taking one piece of evidence out of context. Opposition to gambling, standing alone, is not conclusive. Opposition to gambling in the context of other requirements of Islam is evidence for historians and political observers to consider. The same would be true in the analogy I provided about an objection to serving meat at a formal dinner.--Andy Schlafly 00:50, 17 November 2011 (EST)
The problem with your argument is twofold. Firstly your analogy is not aposite. The refusal to serve meat on a Friday during Lent would indeed be strong evidence of Catholocism, but that is because this fact is something that cannot easily be explained except for Catholocism. In other words, all other explanations are unlikely. Here, on the other hand we have a situation in which there are a myriad of explanations for why Obama would want to criticise gambling in general, and the sinful nature of Las Vegas in particular. I think that people of all faiths and all political persuasions can, for legitimate reasons, believe that gambling is harmful to people and communities and take action accordingly. You say that it is one piece to add to the evidence for Muslim heritage puzzle; I say it is no such thing.
Which brings me to my next point, you appear to be approaching the issue from the starting point of "Obama has a Muslim heritage" and attempting to find any info that might confirm that hypothesis, no matter how tenuous the link. This is committing both the fallacies of begging the question and confirmation bias. --DamianJohn 02:27, 17 November 2011 (EST)
"we have a situation in which there are a myriad of explanations for why Obama would want to criticise gambling in general, and the sinful nature of Las Vegas in particular." I'll agree with you that by itself this is not a definite proof of Obama being a Muslim. However, when adding this up with all the other evidence presented in the article about Obama's Muslim heritage the case for him being a Muslim becomes quite strong. Obama's opposition to gambling is even more suspect when you consider the fact that on most other issues he's quite a liberal.
Anyhow, I fail to see how the objection to gambling expressed on the Main Page is somehow contradictionary to the current version of the article about Obama's Muslim heritage. Said article does not condemn his opposition to gambling, it merely bring this issue to light as further evidence for Obama being a Muslim. _ Markman 02:45, 17 November 2011 (EST)
(Unindent)I put to you that if you didn't already think that Obama was a Muslim, you wouldn't give his anti Las Vegas comments the slightest thought, and in fact, your esteem of him would go up. What say you? --DamianJohn 02:26, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Conservative Christian Credo

I was reading through the Conservative Bible Project and had an idea. We could create a Conservative Christian Credo, like a modern day Council of Nicaea. The need unfortunately is great, with Unitarians and gay bishops on one side and people like the Westboro Baptists on the other. Christianity is often cynically used as a tool by liberals who pervert Gods word to advance their own agenda. Conservapedia could preform a valuable service in fighting these enemies of the Word. JimmyRa 21:28, 16 November 2011 (EST)

I agree, we need to root out fake Christians, Cafeteria Christians, Liberal Christians, and the lot. I'm surprised that this idea doesn't have a lot of support. --Alcool 17:58, 18 November 2011 (EST)

What is "evolutionary astronomy?"

I just finished looking through the online course catalogs at five randomly selected top-tier American universities (Stanford, Yale, Texas, Michigan and Columbia.) None of them offer courses on evolutionary astronomy; none of their astronomy departments seem to have courses about evolution, and none of their biology departments--where evolution is taught--have courses that deal with astronomy. Who are some of the leading researchers in the field of evolutionary astronomy? Is there a journal of evolutionary astronomy? ScottDG 08:59, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Did the evolutionists Eugenie Scott use the term "evolutionary astronomy" in a publication published by the owners of Science which is the most respected American peer reviewed science journal in among evolutionists?[5] see: Not (just) in Kansas anymore EC Scott - Science, 2000 - sciencemag.org Here is the results under the Google scholar entry: "of 27 scientists and teachers, the board voted to strip from the standards all mention of the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, and any reference to organisms having descended with modification from common ancestors: in other words, evolutionary astronomy, geology, and biology". If anyone is going to a university library tomorrow, it would be interesting to see what is uncovered. Conservative 00:11, 21 November 2011 (EST)
ScottDG, I have a sneaking suspicion if you look it up that you will not feel an "exhilarating sense of power and strength". Perhaps. if you had some foresight about the future and were proven right, you might learn what it is like to have "exhilarating sense of power and strength". :) By the way, how is global atheism doing? :) Is Richard Dawkins debating William Lane Craig and/or Rabbi Boteach a second time? ScottDg, one last thing: Olé! Olé!Olé!Conservative 00:42, 21 November 2011 (EST)
ScottDG, I know you thought the term "evolutionary astronomy" sounded like bunk and it made you feel uncomfortable. It does appear though that prominent evolutionist Eugenie Scott promotes atheist/evolutionist bunk/pseudoscience as it appears she used the phrase "evolutionary astronomy". It must be disheartening to find out the "evolutionist experts" that you have been using for window dressing to mask your unwillingness to be under biblical authority have feet of clay. Conservative 17:03, 21 November 2011 (EST)

Categories

Good news: Conservapedia now has only five uncategorized pages, down from several hundred a few months ago. This can only make Conservapedia easier to use, and should increase repeat page views as people browse the site. The remaining pages are all protected, which is why I can't add categories to them. These are:

  1. Enthusiastic student responses to the Question evolution! campaign
  2. Jesus Seminar
  3. Main Page/archive91
  4. Shockofgod's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette
  5. X

Would an administrator like to add categories to these remaining pages, or unprotect them so that I can do so? Thanks--CPalmer 09:09, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Assassination

I think a bullet hitting the White House window is a big deal. Any story on the assassination attempt coming? Should be on this main page, I think. RickTx 12:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Main page claim that relativity has been disproved

From the source to which you linked on the front page: "The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world." "Jacques Martino, director of the French National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, who worked on the second experiment said that while this test was not a full confirmation, it did remove some of the potential systematic errors that may have occurred in the first one. "The search is not over," he said in a statement. "There are more checks of systematics currently under discussion." ScottDG 14:20, 18 November 2011 (EST)

I agree, I believe it is a bit too soon to jump towards "disproved" when only two tests have been completed. DanJG 14:33, 18 November 2011 (EST)
NOTE: I have changed the section from "Relativity disproved" to "Speed of light barrier". This is because a single news story about a scientific breakthrough in not sufficient for an encyclopedia to assert an overturning of a major theory. We should give other scientists a lot more time to react. --Ed Poor Talk 16:21, 18 November 2011 (EST)
But Ed, I wrote that section title in response to this bit on the main page: "Will the liberals who run the Nobel Prize committee now punish the scientists who just disproved the Theory of Relativity, ..." If you want to change something, you should change that. ScottDG 16:35, 18 November 2011 (EST)
I could change it, but I'm more concerned with expressing a matter of principle. It's not like introducing a new product. Reviewers and consumers could evaluate the new crop of smartphones in a matter of months. Progress in science, evaluating a scientific breakthrough, is a much slower process. What I'd like to change is the tendency of much of the press (and some CP contributors) to herald the latest press release on a scientific topic, as if it is the new orthodoxy: cut and dried, and tied up with a ribbon. --Ed Poor Talk 16:43, 18 November 2011 (EST)
Don't tell me. Tell Aschlafly. He's the one who's trying to hammer the nails into the coffin. I'm the one who posted key lines from the article that he posted that should tell him he's wrong. ScottDG 16:46, 18 November 2011 (EST)
A similar experiment, with similar results, has been achieved at another lab, as has been explained in Counterexamples to Relativity. At some point it becomes appropriate to point out the resistance to scientific results, rather than going along with never-ending demands for another redundant experiment.--Andy Schlafly 16:58, 18 November 2011 (EST)
I agree wholeheartedly about "the resistance to scientific results". I've been wanting to expand our History of Science article, to detail the reaction of scientists to new discoveries. Sometimes acceptance is quick. Other times, the "old guard" hangs on for decades (or generations), refusing to look at the evidence for the new theory. How many tens of billions of dollars have been spent 'proving' man-made global warming (AGW)? Compare that to the money or attention given to how solar variation affects terrestial cloud formation. It's incredible, when you realize that the IPCC admits that little is known about how clouds affect air temperature. --Ed Poor Talk 18:13, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Did the prominent evolutionist Eugenie Scott use the term "evolutionary astronomy"?

ScottDg, did the evolutionists Eugenie Scott use the term "evolutionary astronomy" in a publication published by the owners of Science which is the most respected American peer reviewed science journal among evolutionists and old earthers?[6] see: Not (just) in Kansas anymore EC Scott - Science, 2000 - sciencemag.org Here is the results under the Google scholar entry: "of 27 scientists and teachers, the board voted to strip from the standards all mention of the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, and any reference to organisms having descended with modification from common ancestors: in other words, evolutionary astronomy, geology, and biology". If anyone is going to a university library tomorrow, it would be interesting to see what is uncovered. Conservative 00:11, 21 November 2011 (EST)

American astrophysicist and educator Eric Chaisson and evolution/astronomy

ScottDg, did American astrophysicist and educator Eric Chaisson publish a book entitled: Universe: An Evolutionary Approach to Astronomy ? [7] Conservative 00:23, 21 November 2011 (EST)

Desert whales

What is the source for the claim that the whales were found at an elevation of 13,000 feet? --Virgil 15:50, 21 November 2011 (EST)

There are a number of [sources] to show they have found the whales in the Atacama desert in Chile, and much of the Atacama desert is indeed thousands of feet above sea level. But the altitude is of no interest to scientists (The presence of fossils atop of a mountain is explained by the sea floor being raised upwards through tectonic shifts, over several million years). What interests the paleontologists is why there were so many whales in just that one spot of the desert. That is pretty fascinating in its own right. Maninahat 19:43, 21 November 2011 (EST)
You don't even have to resort to so much science for this particular case: The fossils were found half a mile away from the surf (near a port city, even) by people who had been building a highway there. 13,000 feet (~2.5 miles) would mean (1) that there is a gigantic cliff right next to the port city and (2) that somebody thought it would be a good idea to construct a highway up there. Here's a Google Maps link to the city in question. I note the slight absence of cliffs or absurdly high mountains near the coast line. --Sid 3050 19:22, 21 November 2011 (EST)
The whales were found near Copiapo, not Caldera, Chile, which is over 40 miles inland. The elevation there is roughly 1,300 feet above sea level. [8] Karajou 08:52, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Same source: "Today, the whales have emerged again atop a desert hill more than half a mile (a kilometer) from the surf". I went with Terry's cited sources, such as this one, which says "The finds, made near the northern city of Caldera". I guess Copiapo is just mentioned since it's the larger and better-known point of reference, being the capital of Copiapó Province and Atacama Region. But the fossils weren't found "near" it. --Sid 3050 09:29, 22 November 2011 (EST)
But even taking your claim at face value, the main page blurb claims that they were found at an elevation of 13,000 feet, so even Copiapo would be off by a factor of 10. --Sid 3050 09:31, 22 November 2011 (EST)
The museum where the fossils have been sent to is in Caldera; they were removed from the road-widening project near Copiapo that involves Route 5, and they have until December 21 to finish up. The "13,000" feet could very well be a typo involving an extra "0". Karajou 09:43, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Route 5 also connects to Caldera (see the Google Maps link I provided), the "typo" is both in Terry's article and the blurb here, and you still haven't explained how the fossils "have emerged again atop a desert hill more than half a mile (a kilometer) from the surf" "near the northern city of Caldera". At the very least, could you take out the "13,000 feet" sentence from the blurb? I think we both agree by now that it's not true. --Sid 3050 09:48, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Removed the news item completely. The whales were found near the coast along Route 5, about a mile or so north of Caldera. The proof of that is the photos of the site which show a large body of water (Caldera Bay), something that does not exist near Copiapo. Still, the site is quite a ways inland and uphill, with upwards of eighty whales found intact, as well as seals, porpoises, sharks, fish, and other animals found. Karajou 10:06, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Thank you, and I agree that it's an intriguing find. --Sid 3050 11:34, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Video game and football player

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how a video game can be responsible for the player's heart attack. Can someone enlighten me? --BradleyS 17:39, 21 November 2011 (EST)

Did you spend even 1 minute looking? In merely a few seconds, searching the internet for "video game" and "heart attack," the first entry gives an example and also a medical study: [9]--Andy Schlafly 18:20, 21 November 2011 (EST)
From your source:
Was Peter, indeed, a casualty of the games? "Yes and no," says Mark Allen, Lake County's deputy coroner. Though the autopsy found unsuspected scar tissue on Peter's heart that was at least two weeks old, Allen believes, it's possible that the stress of the games triggered the attack in Peter's weakened heart.

"We certainly don't want to scare people away from video games," Allen explains. "Peter could have died in a number of stressful situations. We once had a boy who had a heart attack while studying for an exam. It just happened that he died in front of a video game, but it's also quite interesting."

It seems like the scar tissue is the real culprit. As for the study, all it showed was that heart rate and blood pressure increased when people played Pong. This also happens when people exercise or, as the coroner mentions, study for an exam. Are we going to say that exercise and studying cause death? --BradleyS 19:11, 21 November 2011 (EST)
Did editting at Conservapedia cause the tragic death of TK? He was last seen, in apparent good health, on Conservapedia. Less than a day later, he was found dead from cardiac arrest, without any suspicious circumstances.
Now you're a step closer to understanding how loved ones of the dead feel after you dance on their graves and use their deaths disgustingly to promote your pet causes. (If Conservapedia actually supports free speech like it claims, this comment will not be deleted). --BradleyS 23:03, 21 November 2011 (EST)
For the record, the kid's name was Garrett Uekman. SorryCharlie 23:13, 21 November 2011 (EST)
It's not the same, though. Numerous studies have found that that video games are harmful, and even potentially deadly, while wiki editing could only eat up your free time at best. Now, did playing video games actually contribute to his death? I'm not sure, but it's entirely possible. KrisS 01:20, 22 November 2011 (EST)
I'd argue that wiki editing can be potentially just as harmful as videogames. Both activities can further the effects of any number of maladies (carpal tunnel syndrome, vision loss, etc.). Meanwhile, heart levels can fluctuate when confronted with a subject one is passionate about, or greatly amused by. Maninahat 10:11, 24 November 2011 (EST)
Personal tools