User talk:Aschlafly

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This User Has 23,291 Edits, and Had 1426 Points in Contest4!

Contents

Name change

I have been informed that Conservapedia no longer permits user names in all-caps. I have been advised to contact you about changing my user name. Can you change it from "FOIA" to "Foia"? FOIA 09:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Logo

Can you please remove the spinning logo from the main page? The only reason I uploaded it was to test the .gif file type on CP. It's definately not done yet. If you would like me to I can try to finish it. I still have to turn the "Conservapedia" silver, and make it so that the flag on the back isn't backwards. I was thinking it might look good if I made the back a solid color, and put "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" on the back. Let me know what you think.

Thanks, --Chris 13:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It looks great already. Feel free to improve it, but only replace it when you have an improvement. Something is better than nothing, and don't allow a desire for perfection to impede progress now.--Aschlafly 15:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Map of our viewers

see Talk:Main_Page#worldwide_map_of_the_location_of_our_visitors, if you install a certain package Conservapedia could load a map on the main page that shows the locations of our viewers --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Affirmative Action?

In response to the following:

Don't continue to reinsert incorrect information. There's never been racial or gender restrictions on becoming president.--Aschlafly 22:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Did that mean that before the American Civil War slaves were free to change career paths, or even run for President? Interesting.Pluto 19:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Pluto, if you were taught in public school then this may surprise you, but before the Civil War there were many blacks who were not slaves and, of course, blacks have always met the constitutional qualifications to be president.--Aschlafly 19:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in part, ruled that slaves and their descendants, regardless of whether descendants were slaves or not, were not and could never be "citizens" of the United States. Therefore, they were ineligible under Article Two, which states that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen. Blacks weren't and could never be citizens according to Dred Scott v. Sandford, and therefore did NOT meet the constitutional qualifications for president. --Jareddr 19:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
^True. Also, there were free states that excluded blacks from serving on juries and skilled occupations far below the level of President. Illinois and Indiana had laws banning blacks from their states entirely. Only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote.
Also, 95% of blacks lived in the South, mostly as slaves.Pluto 20:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr has a unique interpretation of the significance of the Dred Scott decision, which of course had nothing to do with qualifications for president. And of course it said nothing about gender.--Aschlafly 21:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I think you should admit you were wrong here. No big deal I suppose but I don't think it is credible to argue Blacks always had the right to become president. Even if you are technically correct that there was no specific positive disqualification on their being president, this may be because there was no attempt by any black people to become president as the legal outcome of such an attempt was obvious until after the civil war.--DamianJohn 21:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I don't wish to offend, but Jareddr's "interpretation" of Dred Scott is very, very, very very far from unique. Only an American citizen can become President, and the Dred Scott decision held that no black American was a citizen. Roger Taney's decision said that blacks have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."Pluto 22:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
What happened to your false claim about gender? As to race, Dred Scott did not "hold" what you say. Rather, that was a non-binding portion of the opinion, which was widely criticized and ignored.--Aschlafly 23:25, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
As to gender, women couldn't vote until the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Dred Scott was unpopular with Republicans, but was popular with Northern Democrats, Southerners and the border states.Pluto 23:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Right about gender, but I thought you originally said women could not become president. That's false.
As to Dred Scott, you're probably right that it was supported by the Democratic Party for that brief period of 1857 through 1865. Good thing the Republican Party was soon running the show, right?--Aschlafly 08:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Andy, so according to your version of American History, blacks were citizens recognized by the government from the signing of the Constitution right through the signing of the Fourteenth Amendment? Because I'd love to see some citations that state that blacks were considered citizens during that time. --Jareddr 09:49, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps this "information" regarding their citizenship could be placed on CP someplace. I'd be interested to see the reactions of other readers finding out blacks were citizens before the Civil War. --Jareddr 09:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I am glad sanity has prevailed and you no longer seem to be asserting that Blacks could always be president of the USA. However if I read you right you seem to be clinging to the idea that women were always eligible for the presidency. I repeat my statement for women, if they couldn't vote, how on earth could they run for public office?--DamianJohn 10:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is flawed. It's amazing the lengths some go to defend a falsehood. There has never been a racial or gender-based limitation for the presidency. Don't accept the truth if you insist, but I'm not going to allow repetition of falsehoods on my talk page. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Is there a citizenship requirement for presidency? Yes. So the question becomes, Aschlafly, were blacks considered full-fledged natural-born citizens before the Civil War? --Jareddr 10:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


In Andy's defense on this, "the descendants of slaves" and "black Americans" are not perfectly contiguous populations. A little research will show that there were black colonists who came as free citizens originally (or, in some cases, as indentured servants.) Dred Scott, therefore, does not speak directly to the question of whether an African-American can be President, regardless of whether it was binding or not. --Benp 11:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Technically, there is no law that would favor Obama over McCain either. I thought the issue there was some non-legal alleged bias. When large groups of people couldn't vote, that points to a bias. Can a bias that obvious be found against white male Presidential candidates? Also, Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, slave or free.
And yes, it is a good thing the Republicans fought against a law as bad as Dred Scott. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, as well as the fact that Democrats supported Dred Scott.Pluto 11:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


At the moment, I'm looking specifically at the debate over whether or not it was technically historically possible for a black man to run for President; the larger issue is a debate into which I don't care to enter at this time. As far as the assertion that Dred Scott sought to deny citizenship to all blacks, I'd have to ask for a citation on that; having reviewed the text of the decision, what I found was that it applied specifically and explicitly to slaves and their descendants. Thus, you would be correct in asserting that slaves could not run for President; Andy would be correct in asserting that there was no law prohibiting someone from running for President simply because he was black. --Benp 11:57, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Having read the decision as well, it seems that they were extending it to all blacks, as opposed to just slaves. For instance, "And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs's Tenn.Reports, 331.", "in no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights,"
"The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790, and confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free white persons."
"Neither was it used with any reference to the African race imported into or born in this country; because Congress had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them."
And finally, "Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States."
All these sections seem to refer to those of color, free or slaves, as separate and not considered citizens in the Dred Scott decision. --Jareddr 15:46, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Obama and Abortion

I have posted the entire quote on the talk page clearly showing it is not in reference to abortion. Are you going to respond to it or just keep labeling it as "misleading information"? StatsMsn 19:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)Q

I read your (unreferenced) quote. The "punished" phrase clearly applies to being able to have an abortion. It's remarkable that anyone would deny that.--Aschlafly 19:51, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Aside the fact that he's talking about providing more information on contraception immediately before making the quip, and then immediately after the quip states that it makes no sense not to give them the information on contraception. Where on earth does he mention abortion? StatsMsn 19:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
First of all, liberals support abortion as a form of contraception. Second of all, abortion is the only plausible meaning for avoiding the so-called punishment for the so-called mistake. There is no other plausible meaning for that phrase. Obama certainly is not supporting adoption with his phrase!--Aschlafly 20:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Um... abortion is not a form of contraception, and no liberal would support it as one. I'm willing to bet you couldn't find one reference to support the phrase. Also Obama could easily be referring to comprehensive sex education, if his daughter did make a mistake (have sex outside of marriage) then he would not want her punished with a baby, instead he would rather her use appropriate protection in order to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. That's the only view which is supported by the quote, which has Obama talking about sex education immediately before and immediately after the quip, and not mentioning abortion once. StatsMsn 20:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
StatsMsn, you're clueless. The abortion industry, and politicians it supports, do promote abortion as a form of contraception and profit immensely from it in that manner. The term "mistake" can only plausibly refer to a pregnancy. Obama's quote was widely interpreted by others in this obvious manner, and it is consistent with his public positions on abortion. Have last wordism here as I expect you'll insist, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this particular issue.--Aschlafly 20:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Contraception from L. contra + (con)ception. By definition abortion cannot be a form of contraception because it occurs after conception. --ProfHigginsPhD 20:22, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Dear Andrew Schlafly,

I understand that Wikipedia has some liberal bias, and I was very interested in checking out your site to see what you deem a fair and unbiased and “trustworthy” alternative.

What I found instead was disappointing.

I am having trouble believing that you truly do not realize how absurdly biased your site is. Surely you must have noticed that more than 90% of the views your site gets are from people coming to stare in disbelief at your incredibly biased and misinformed delusional and pathetic excuse for a website.

Even WIKIPEDIA, which you claim to be the epitomy of liberal bias, has a page with a list of criticisms of itself. You have no such page, which I’d expect you would have, to be fair.

Any arguments against your views are cited as either liberal, biased, or atheist/pro evolution. You, quite frankly, are blind. I would, quite literally, sooner go to Uncyclopedia for information than to this website.

You blame as much as possible, true or not, on atheists and homosexuals, your sexism article is so one sided it’s a mobius strip, and until my suggestion yesterday, you had no article on Floods in the natural disaster sense, only an article on “the great flood”.

Your atheism article… oh, gee, WHERE DO I BEGIN? Let’s start with the first thing that catches my eye: the “Atheist Symbol”. Schlafly, I hate to break it to you, but not only is that not an atheist symbol, but they don’t HAVE ONE. They’re NOT A RELIGION. They don’t go to churches, they don’t have holy books, and they CERTAINLY don’t have that generic google-searched model of an atom as a “symbol”. Next, on to the definition of atheism. It’s not the DENIAL of the existence of god. That would require all atheists to know deep down that there IS a god. Atheism is actually the BELIEF that there is no god. Which brings me to the part of the Atheism page that shows theories that atheists don’t exist… I’m sorry, but you’re trying to support a claim that I, being an Atheist, know is wrong. It’s not just an opinion. If you’re trying to tell me that I believe in god, THAT… IS… NOT… TRUE! I do NOT believe in god. In FACT, neither do the Buddhists, the feral children (in case you don’t know, that’s a human raised by animals), or all but THREE of the religions in the world. Listen you FOOL! Your claim has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDING in truth, proof, or arguably even sanity. And yet you put it on the Atheist page with such support that the reader would think half the world agrees with it.

Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Nearly everything you use to argue your points is a mined quote, an empty assertion, a disturbing censorship of the facts, or an outright lie.

You also wield “teh ban hammer” with greater efficiency than John Henry, and with much less human mercy. You will ban anyone who so much as INSULTS you, an act almost UNHEARD of on WIKIPEDIA. This also means you’ll likely ban me for posting this. However, that would mean that you would be verifying one of my accusations against you.

Now, Mr. Schlafly, is that something you’re willing to do?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackSmith (talk)

To whoever wrote this message, I would suggest that you edit it to make it significantly shorter. Even the most well-developed arguments, as long as they exceed an easy-to-digest length, will be dismissed on this site as "liberal." --IlTrovatore 22:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
At first glance I thought that you wrote it, given that yours was the first signature and your message was on the same indent level! But I've now fixed that. Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Please go to the footnote for "an atheist symbol". I then suggest you wrangle with the United States government. Conservative 22:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

IlTrovatore is right here. The unsigned rant above is too long to be taken seriously or even read. Take your best point, whoever you are, and state it concisely. We don't have time otherwise. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy - it took me less than a minute to read the rant and less than three to concoct this executive summary for you: Really not all that time-consuming. (Note the following is a summary of the above entry and does not necessarily reflect my views)

1.CP is too biased, just as it claims WP is. 2.WP has a page dedicated to self-criticism - why not CP? 3.Many arguments presented by you and others lack intellectual depth and rely on blaming the familiar bugbear of liberalism. 4.The atheism article is especially problematic in its fundamental assumptions. 5. The site bans dissenting editors on a regular basis. AliceBG 23:05, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks much, Alice! Responses below:
1.CP is too biased, just as it claims WP is.

REPLY: CP discloses its point-of-view, and misleads no one. WP conceals its point-of-view and misleads many.


2.WP has a page dedicated to self-criticism - why not CP?

REPLY: I'm fine with a page of criticism. We allow criticism here freely on many pages, as you can see. By the way, WP's page about its bias censored my edits there over time. I doubt WP allows clear, meaningful criticisms.


3.Many arguments presented by you and others lack intellectual depth and rely on blaming the familiar bugbear of liberalism.

REPLY: Be specific, as our entries are.


4.The atheism article is especially problematic in its fundamental assumptions.

REPLY: Take that up with its authors. I don't write every entry here, obviously. In fact, my edits are less than 5% of this site.


5. The site bans dissenting editors on a regular basis.

REPLY: For vandalism or rule violations, yes. For ideology, no.--Aschlafly 23:12, 8 June 2008 (EDT)


Andy, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't dismissing his "rant." I actually took the time to hear him out and realize that he made some cogent points. I was merely helping him to be aware of how to best avoid "teh ban hammer." --IlTrovatore 16:16, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't refer to it as a rant - merely the response of someone who Conservapedia has offended. I also noticed that it did not take long to read, and I agree with what he has to say. I also find it fascinating how all the REPLY's do not actually reply to any of his points, just tell him to go elsewhere with his complaints or give slick non-answers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthebrick2 (talk)

You asked me to write here to discuss your deleting my edits on the "professor values" page. As it stands now, it claims that a professor cannot get tenure if he/she, say opposes abortion. Well, that's not so. My edit offered a few "counterexamples". You also could add that a fair fraction of the Harvard Economics Department has served Republican presidents. I'm a long tenured professor who has been on maybe 50 tenure decisions over the years. In none of these was the candidate's political views a factor.


Hello.

My edits to the homeschooling page were to improve the factuality and readability of the article. I thought that I would clean it up a bit, but after I saw that most of the citations refer only to themselves, I figured it was a lost cause.

From your rules:

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.[2]
  2. Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5]

The author of this article broke both these rules. As far as I can tell, the edits I made fall well within the rest of the commandments. If I have failed to follow them in any way, please let me know.

--JoshPDX

My cursory review found that you deleted how homeschoolers win math contests. Is that correct?--Aschlafly 08:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

but that would have nothing to do with them being homeschooled, just with the factr that they probably are smart on their own. PastafarianFSM 16:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

yeah, if homeschoolers were generally better at math, solely because of how they were homeschooled, that would require all homeschooling parents to be automatically smarter than professional teachers. --JackSmith 15:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

A request

Please visit my talk page, I believe you will find what I posted interesting. Wandering 10:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Hello? Are you even going to acknowledge my requests that you explain your reversions of my edits, which you then threatened to block me over? Wandering 15:57, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you purposefully ignoring me? Wandering 19:05, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
When you improve the quality of your edits, I'll increase the priority of your questions. Sound fair? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
But you haven't addressed why my edits haven't been up to your standards (or how I removed information from the professor values article), and have threatened to block me if I make any more that you don't like. You're a teacher - don't you think people learn better when they know what mistakes they've made? Wandering 19:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

"Wanted Pages" Page

Where did the wanted pages go? I found that a nice jumping-off point for contributions. --IlTrovatore 16:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Click on "Recent Changes" on the left, and then on the Top Right of that screen is a link for "Wanted Pages"--Jareddr 16:35, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Signing up

Why is Conservapedia not allowing people to sign up? --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

That was temporary. Registration has been reopened. Thanks for noting this.--Aschlafly 17:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Your Violation of Conservapedia Rules

Sir, your reversion of my edits on the page of Barack Obama are in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. If you will not follow the rules and allow me to remove statements that violate these Commandments, then I will report you. This is not open to interpretation. "Liberal POV" statements can be removed, but conservative statements in violation of the rules are still in violation of the rules. I insist you stop. -Aehlinger

No, we allow logical and presumptive statements having truth that can hardly be questioned, as in the statement that Obama was the presumptive nominee before it was official. Don't delete obviously true statements before there has even been time to add citations.--Aschlafly 18:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I have made no such statements. I cite with official web pages. I never made ANY assumptions, like saying Obama was the presumptive nominee before last Saturday. I remove statements that unabashedly use the word "Presumably", which violates Conservapedia Commandment 5. I state that he is a law professor - which was a title bestowed upon him by his own university. They said it themselves, and I don't know how you can possibly argue that. This site has become a bastion for conspiracy theories with no verification - something explicity forbidden by its own documentation and goes against all principles the site stands for. --Aehlinger

I agree with Aehlinger. The quote from Bill Clinton is exceptionally misleading - Clinton was flat out wrong: TIME criticized him for the false statement, Obama made a speech against the war in 2002, and he voted against it. While it is true that Clinton referred to his opposition as a fairy tale, it is not, in fact, a fairy tale, so your claim in "Dear Andrew Schlaffly" that "CP misleads no one" seems absurd in this light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthebrick2 (talk)

Legitimate Criticism Raised on Barack Obama Article

Sir,

Please reconsider using overly emotive images and language in this project. It does your website no favours in terms of credibility. In fact, I would go so far as to say the reason you are mocked on the blogosphere is because you all seem to be quixotically unaware of how ridiculous you seem, the extent to which you indulge in double standards on articles about politicians you don't like and then have the bare faced affrontary to claim Wikipedia is overly critical of conservatives. How about doing to others as you would like done to you? The article on Barack Obama is full of your beloved Placement Bias. The images contain Obama standing at the pledge of allegiance without thumping his chest like a good patriot. You and I are both intelligent enough to understand that the rumours that have made these pictures spread are nothing more than an elaborate smear job by racists who fear the election of a black man as President. Please reconsider the effects this smear campaign has on people like me, an African American.

I came here originally amused but slightly baffled at how people could have so much time on their hands. Together I think, we can make this place work. TBarret 21:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I have no way to verify your claims of ethnicity, nor does it matter. Surely you don't think your argument has greater weight depending on what your ethnicity is.
No one is criticizing Obama based on his race. But he's not immune from criticism based on his race either. Surely you agree with that.--Aschlafly 21:42, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy, I'm puzzled. Believe me, I think Obama is worthless and I'm only glad that we'll be able to beat him so soundly in the fall, but what kind of criticism based on his race did you have in mind? BryonRichards 01:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe what andy meant, is that Obama's race does not give him immunity from criticism. And please refrain from parody. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 02:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Right. Obama is not immune from criticism due to his race.--Aschlafly 08:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Certainly he is not immune from criticism. However, the flag pin controversy is a front by the right who want to use fear to get a Republican elected. Lies like, 'Obama is anti-soldier' only make you look more foolish, and most see past that. You have no idea how angry the African American community is over the flag pin controversy - We are sick of fighting the wars (We contribute more young men and women per head of population than the white population) and then get labelled as unamerican. If the right continues this tactic, you will lose any hope of EVER gaining the African American vote beyond the insignificant single digit it is now. TBarret 09:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)


To say that all of Barack Obama's accomplihments are from afirmative action is both insulting and an opinion, and should be removed. the whole article needs to be re written to be less offensive, not one sided, and factualy accurate. PS- up until recently, John McCain did not wear a flag pin on his lapen PastafarianFSM 15:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's taxpayer funded evolution claim

…what's your opinion on this? --MakeTomorrow 20:33, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Unless the "scientist" makes his data and evidence available for review by others, his claims are worthless. Keep in mind that in the past evolutionists have repeatedly perpetrated frauds, sometimes for decades, such as the Piltdown Man. With folks like yourself accepting whatever they say as gospel truth, they have no incentive to tell the whole truth. Recall the dinosaur-bird fossil hoax in Scientific American about eight years ago? Did you fall for that one also?--Aschlafly 23:00, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, why "scientist"? Secondly, what makes you think it hasn't been made available for review? Thirdly, did Behe put all his papers up for review? Fourth, The Piltdown man was a hoax on evolutionists, not by them. And finally, why dismiss this out of hand? AdenJ 01:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

First, I find Richard Lenski to be more one-sided in his writings than I would expect from an objective scientist. I think Lenski is just looking for ways to justify his preconceived views against critics of evolution. Note, for example, that he puts "intelligent design" in quotes, so he shouldn't mind if the term scientist is put in quotes in referring to him. [1]
Second, the article lacks any statement about availability of the work for independent review, which suggests to me it is not.
Third, Behe is open about his work and I'd expect him to welcome independent review.
Fourth, the Piltdown Man and numbers other frauds (you never responded to the dinosaur-bird fossil hoax) were perpetrated by evolutionists. They could not happen without the active participation and promotion by evolutionists. Were you fooled by the dinosaur-bird fossil hoax by National Geographic?--Aschlafly 06:18, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

In response, I question the way you say "scientist" the same way I would question the way you say "Professor" Obama as it sounds sarcastic and mocking. Whether or not that is what you imply is beside the point as it comes across that way. Also, just because an article does not state there was no sharing or review of the data does not mean there wasnt any (New Scientist is a pop-science mag, not a science review) and is cynical to think otherwise. Thirdly, Behe and other such researchers have been less than forthcoming with review and dont take well to criticsm (you can say the same about evolutionists but that doesnt mean one is better than the other in this regard). Piltdown Man and the like were perpetrated by wanna-be's and glory-hogs and would be hard to prove otherwise unless the proverbial 'red hand' was shown and we could prove that these hucksters were trying to push an evolutioary POV in order to discredit creation (please dont state thats what they were trying to do as I cannot be proved either way!). As for the bird-dino hoax, I didnt know about it so cant commment. I would like to discuss this further however its late in my world and time for bed. AdenJ 06:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

There's not really enough information there to be certain, but I offer the following comments about the linked article and the discussion above.

  • It's not clear just what the change was. There have been cases before of a mutation causing a bacteria to be able to do something that it couldn't do before, but due to a loss of genetic information, not a gain. This article doesn't say which was the case here.
  • Losses of information are common. If E.Coli is unique among bacteria in not being able to use citrate, this might be due to them losing this ability in the past. That is, the molecular machinery was there, but had become disabled. If so, it's likely that a chance mutation didn't give it the ability, but merely reversed the previous mutation that turned off the ability. In other words, the molecular machinery was already there.
  • If the scientist was able to reproduce the results, it indicates not a random mutation, but a non-random change, perhaps because it was designed to be able to switch.
  • Perhaps the reason that Behe et. al. don't take well to criticism is because much of it is unfounded, such as dismissal of ID on ideological rather than scientific grounds.
  • I don't know what you are referring to about Behe et. al. being "less than forthcoming with review", but of course it's almost impossible to get ID peer-reviewed.
  • Evolutionists are guilty in the first instance of using scare quotes around "intelligent design", "creation science", "scientist" when used of a creationist, etc., (see link in previous dot-point for an example) but I agree that doesn't justify doing it in return.
  • No mainstream creationist claims that Piltdown Man was a fraud by the evolutionists who promoted it, but neither is it correct to say that it wasn't by evolutionists. It was perpetrated on (willingly-accepting) evolutionists by another evolutionist.

Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Some (not all) evolutionists have perpetrated numerous frauds, and other evolutionists are fooled by them. The Piltdown Man was a fraud perpetrated for decades by people who knew, or should have know, it was fake. There's no way around that fact. And it is not the only example. The dinosaur-bird fossil fraud was promoted in Scientific American in the past decade.
An easy test is this: does the evolutionist permit outside, independent scrutiny of the data or materials underlying his claim? There is no legitimate reason to deny such independent review, yet many do.--Aschlafly 15:36, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
You and I have had this conversation about Piltdown Man before. Simply claiming that "there's no way around that fact" doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it a fact. What is a fact is that most if not all leading creationists consider it a fraud (by an evolutionist or two) on other evolutionists, who, although gullibly accepting it because it supported their worldview, were not deliberately perpetrating fraud. Archaeoraptor was promoted in National Geographic. You mentioned National Geographic before, but you've also now twice mentioned Scientific American. Are you talking about Archaeoraptor or something else? Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, the Piltdown Man was promoted and taught by evolutionists for decades. It was featured in school textbooks. If evolutionists are the scientists they claim to be, then they would not be so easily fooled by such a simple fraud. Clearly there was, at a minimum, deliberate ignorance by many evolutionists. The law holds such deliberate ignorance accountable, as it should.--Aschlafly 11:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Willing ignorance I can go along with. Now, about the dino-bird fraud...? Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it might be best to clarify some of Richard's work. He started his E.Coli project in 1988 and has been running the project for 20 years now; his protocols are available to the general public. The New Scientist article is not very technical but the paper at PNAS is. The change was based on one of his colonies developing the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E.Coli. This occurred around 31,500 generations and is based on the development of 3 proteins in the E.Coli genome. What his future work will be is to look at what caused the development of these 3 proteins around generation 20,000 of that particular colony. This is key since only this particular population was able to develop the ability to absorb the citrate and thus metabolize it. He has been able to reproduce the results but only by allowing that original colony to grow, the others still have not developed the proteins. It is random since the mutation does not occur in the same conditions or the same generation for the experiments but after thousands of generations the result is the same, citrate using E.Coli. As for the information argument, the entire genome of E.Coli has been known for decades and is part of the basis of this experiment in that the original colony’s genome was sequenced to trace all mutations. The paper is an interesting read but most scientists do not want to spend 20 years of their lives dedicated to watching bacteria mutate like Lenski does.--Able806 16:34, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

That the mutation didn't occur in the same generation doesn't mean that it's not purely random. Suppose you had to switch on a light on the other side of a room, but you couldn't enter the room. So you threw something at the switch. It takes twelves goes before you get lucky and hit it. Next time you try, you are not so lucky, and it takes 22 throws. Hitting the switch had an element of randomness in it. But the switch was designed. I'm speculating, of course, but this case may be similar, for all we know at this stage.
I'm not sure what relevance E.Coli's genome being known has. Despite comments elsewhere in this discussion about the research not standing if others find problems, that's the point of Piltdown. Because it supported their worldview, there was little motivation to question it. Until, of course, the evolutionary hypothesis had changed and Piltdown no longer fitted very well, so now there was motivation to question it. Which answers, by the way, the standard evolutionist response that it was, after all, evolutionists who uncovered the fraud. Yes, but only because they now had motivation to do so. I've often seen evolutionists claim that something or other supports evolution, when all it does is support natural selection or some other aspect of biology that creationists have no problem with. So although I accept that the research will be available for scrutiny, I don't accept that it will get much critical scrutiny, unless someone has some motivation to do so. I'd even suggest that the researcher's attempts to use this research to beat creationists with will "protect" his research from scrutiny, as who would want to overturn evidence against creationism? That can be career suicide.
Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, you maked some very good points, I hope to address them a bit. Keep in mind that I am not a part of Lenski’s research but I can describe some general things that can make this clearer. Let me first explain the importance of the genome being sequenced. By having E.Coli’s genome sequenced we know all of the proteins and their functions that occur in this organism, E.Coli has been studied for decades and a full map of all of it's molecular processes is avalible for researchers to use and understand. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why E.Coli is a preferred medium for conducting protein expression studies. Since we know the sequence in its entirety we can quickly identify mutations in the DNA and check to see the outcomes. Your switch analogy is great! It does show a layer of randomness as well as function through existing structure. The difference between this and what is being claimed by Lenksi is that there were no existing switches until a certain generation occurred, just to clairfy the ability to metabolize citrate was there just not the ability to bring the molecule into the cell to be metabolized.
I understand your statement about Piltdown, if anything the recent intelligent design movement has caused scientists to question their research and the research of others more, at least when it comes to evolutionary biology. Not to say it will not happen again, but the microscope has been adjusted to look at things a bit finer. As for releasing his work, I stated why in my last post. I am sure a microbiologist at ICR will look into it. (I am sorry if I got the acronym incorrect). --Able806 11:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Having the genome sequenced means that we know all the individual genes, and as there is (sort of) a 1:1 correspondence between genes and protein, we therefore effectively know all the proteins. But I imagine that we are still a very long way from understanding what all those proteins do, i.e. what they are for. Therefore, if the molecular machinery for all this was already there but simply turned off somehow, would we have already known that? So is it really true that there were no existing switches until a certain generation occurred? Or is it like a switch with a loose connection in which the first "mutation" presses the loose wire against the contact, enabling the switch to work when you succeed in hitting it when throwing something at it?
As for ICR (yes, a correct acronym) looking into this, they might well do so. But creationism gets essentially no government funding and there are nowhere near enough creationary scientists to check out all such claims. But if this one is prominent enough, this one might get checked.
Incidentally, this is still a problem for evolutionists, and for a reason that creationists have been arguing for a long time. It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved hundreds if not thousands of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore evidence that evolution can't explain our existence. (Of course one can always speculate and have faith that evolution occurred faster than this evidence indicates, but if a creationist expresses his faith in such a way, he is quickly told that that's "not science".)
Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Good morning Philip, we do know all of the proteins and functions for E.Coli. It is not really a 1 to 1 correspondence but no need to go into the molecular genetics, let us just go with what you propose for now. At this time we do know what all of the encoded proteins for E.Coli do, hence the reason E.Coli was chosen instead of yeast. Over the past 30 years microbiologists and molecular biologists have been working on mapping out the entire genome and protein cascades for E.Coli. To answer your question about an expression vector being turned off, yes we would know. Part of researching the E.Coli genome included expressing genes that were not normally expressed. (E.Coli has 4,639,221 base pairs that encode 4,377 genes, 4,290 genes encode protein while the remaining 87 code RNAs (tRNA, mRNA, ect.) This is why we would have discovered a non-expressed protein. It is true that until a certain generation Lenski was unaware of any genomic change that caused a large enough mutation to cause a dynamic effect. Coupled with what we know of E.Coli’s genome I would have to say there were no switches until a certain generation. Your electric circuit analogy is quite good; do you work with electronics per chance? To address your point, the loose switches, (I would say reading frame shifts) would have been detected through the gene expression research done previously. What Lenski is saying is that a mutation popped up that allowed for the development of the transport proteins for the citrate. He is looking for this mutation now. Consider that transport proteins do not have to be very large to do their job so this could be a very small mutation, perhaps 300 base pairs.
To address the length of time issue, you have to consider that 31,500 generations of E.Coli was only ~20 years. The mutation allowed for citrate to be metabolized thus increasing the rate of growth of the colony, as reported in Lenski’s paper. Consider that bacterial population growth is logarithmic, and for the most part population organism growth, it truly is dependent on the reproductive rate and mutation rate which differs among organisms. You would have to realize that it would not take the same number of generations for humans since humans tend to have much my dynamic environments. This experiment is in a very controlled environment to limit influences in order to retain traceability. Viruses for example mutate at a faster rate than bacteria but yet there are cases where certain species have a much higher mutation rate than what would be considered a lower species. The mutation rate is not dependent on the order of the organism in relation to how complicated (large genome), as much as it depends on if the genetics encode for a better mutation repair system and how that system works. A prime example would be modern day reptiles, most have very good molecular repair systems thus their mutation rates are much lower, sharks are another great example. As such we really should not expect to see short jumps on an evolutionary timeline for these species since their mutation rates and reproductive rates are pretty slow. Another point is how complicated the mutation is and how does it affect the protein cascade it occured in? In summary, to say that evolution takes to long is dependent on the organism and thus varies greatly. To say one way or another is to assume to much.--Able806 09:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Able806, you haven't seen the data and, indeed, the data are inexplicably unavailable for independent public scrutiny. Moreover, you won't even ask for the data and seem to have no interest in doing so. Yet you speak of Lenski's work as though it must be true and without flaws.
Able806, I think I haven't made myself clear. My reference to a switch was meant to be analogous to the molecular machinery of the bacteria, not to the DNA of the bacteria. The DNA is like the plans for the switch, not the switch itself. So I'm not suggesting that the DNA necessarily had defective plans for a switch as such (and being defective the switch wasn't built), but perhaps that it had plans for a defective switch! Yes, that would require a defective plan, but the switch still gets built; it just doesn't work properly. (Until a mutation fixes that problem.) So there wouldn't necessarily be unexpressed genes. Rather, there would be genes that express a defective switch.
I'm quite sceptical of what you appear to be saying, that scientists fully understand the workings of all the molecular machinery of E.Coli, how it interacts with other parts, and so on.
Your arguments about mutation rates appear confused and contradictory. Yes, Lenski had the E.Coli in a controlled environment, but it was also with varied environments to try and stimulate mutations! He wanted mutations; he wasn't trying to suppress them. Also, you indicate that "higher" species have lower mutation rates. This would include humans having lower mutation rates, especially given the repair machinery they also have. So you're not really helping your argument! Yes, how long evolution takes does depend on mutation rates, but given that we have some idea of them (this one result took 31,500 generations, and you've just argued that "higher" species (e.g. humans) would have lower rates), then it is quite legitimate to argue that this is evidence against evolution.
I develop railway timetables for suburban trains, by the way. Nothing to do with electrics at all really (except that they are electric trains!)
Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
This is how frauds and/or flawed work like the Piltdown Man and many others are spread and perpetuated. It's not scientific.--Aschlafly 10:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, if you read the text above you will see that I was commenting to Philip's questions. My response truly is independent of Lenski's work since the response deals with past research. Lenski did not do the work about the E.Coli's genome nor did he perform the work for the frame shift research. My reply dealt with that, so to infer that I believe Lenski's work without review is false. Like I have stated before, I make no claims to Lenski's E.Coli research being true until it is reviewed. Stop trying to associate me with something that I have never stated. I could care less about reviewing the data; I am not going to spend the days if not months reviewing it. I get paid to do other things. I never stated that it would not have flaws nor would I expect it to be flawless. Like I have stated before, Lenski's reputation as a scientist is clean so to assume the worse without reviewing is just speculation.
I saw your request below and I applaud that you are willing to make the effort. I only ask this, if you did not understand an ARA how would you make heads or tails of a C-G ratio analysis? This would only be a small part of the review needed to verify his work. If you are willing to learn the different analyses for the data then I would have to applaud you once again. I just mention this because if you are not familiar with how to review the data, he could give you false data and you would not know the difference.--Able806 11:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I looked at it briefly. Lenski's study is federally funded, and Lenski should make all the data available. I see some protocols and some conclusions about the data in the above link. I don't see the data themselves.
I find Lenski to be biased against intelligent design in his writings on the internet. Lenski is someone who benefits from federal funding of his studies while probably opposing federal funding of intelligent design. I'm skeptical that Lenski would allow a thorough review of his work by anyone other than a fellow evolutionist.
Keep in mind that most evolutionists believe the theory must somehow be true, regardless of what the evidence is.--Aschlafly 17:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, per PNAS submission guidelines "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." Richard has made his data sets available in the past to anyone who wanted to review it, I do not see him changing now.
Most of the evolutionary scientific community is biased against intelligent design, how does that relate to his research? He is trying to provide an example of recorded evolution. This is quite the ad hominem attack towards Richard since his bias truly has no reflection of the E.Coli mutating or not.
"Keep in mind that most evolutionists believe the theory must somehow be true, regardless of what the evidence is." The same can be said of many others but evidence is what really makes the difference. Correlation does not imply causation. If the data is explored and says otherwise then his research will be called into question and his status as a researcher will be lost. Just to point out, those examples you provided were debunked by scientists in the evolutionary field while performing their review of the work. That is how science works, research is presented and needs to hold up against evaluation or it is labeled as false.--Able806 17:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Here's the data for the arrays. And here's his email: lenski@msu.edu. I'm sure he's got thousands of equally huge pages of numbers that he'd be happy to share with you, Andy. --Leda 18:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't see the data for Lenski's claim, as stated in the New Scientist article, that "sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."[2] I presume that New Scientist has not see such data, and neither have you.
Please feel free to email Lenski and ask him to post and data that he thinks supports his central claim. And don't expect anyone to fall for the old trick of producing a mountain of worthless data. It is the data supporting the greatest claim that is needed.
By the way, Lenski's extremely pro-evolution point of view should have been disclosed in the New Scientist article to alert the readers. Based on his writings on the internet, I take it Lenski insists on 100% of federal funding to support the theory of evolution, just as his work was supported by tax dollars, but not one dime to go to anyone who criticizes it (such as intelligent design work). If you don't think that is bias, then I wonder you would consider to be bias.--Aschlafly 19:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
If you were replying to me just there, then you've missed my point. Bluntly: given the nature of the data he's collecting, how on earth would you be able to tell whether the relevant sections supported his claim or not? --Leda 20:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, Leda, do you seriously think the data cannot be presented in a clear manner??? Rest assured that, in fact, it can. But I'm equally confident that the data supposedly supporting the evolutionists' claim will never be presented in a clear manner for independent review.--Aschlafly 21:45, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, the data that Leda linked to is very clear, if you are trained to read and understand antibiotic resistance analyses. Data can be presented in a clear manner but it is only as clear as the person's training to understand it. Lenski's ARA is as clear as they come. Data is what it is, in the case of the link, it is the antibiotic resistance towards each identified gene. That does not tell you much unless you understand how antibiotics actualy work. The point is, if you want raw data you can not expect it to be simplified, if you want a clear version then you read the research paper. This is pretty much standard for all science, even creation science is performed this way, ask Philip.--Able806 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Fine, you're arguing the opposite of Leda, but my basic point remains the same: where is the data supporting the evolutionists' claim that "sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."[3] If you have it, then clearly present it. But I presume that New Scientist has not see such data, and that neither have you.--Aschlafly 23:32, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I will admit I have not seen the data, I never asked to see it since it would be a waste of time for me to review it without reason. I know Richard's work and he has put decades into his research to present his life's work without actual data would be insane. Here is the link to the current summary data for the experiment, it does get updated once they compile. The PNAS has seen the data or they would not have allowed publication. Since New Scientist is not a scientific journal you would be correct in that they would not need to see the data. Just to note, the change happened at 20,000 to cause the citrate to be metabolized, what happened at 31,500 was the actual metabolization. Lenski is reviewing that data to show what happened, as mentioned in the article. This could take some time if he plans on providing a molecular model. If you would like to see the raw data, then contact Lenski. Since it was a government funded study he is required by the award to provide information on his research, this includes data. Beyond that, to keep stating that he would refuse without asking is just making assumptions.--Able806 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, you have blind faith in Lenski, as though he were perfect. Those of us who are open-minded believe in independent checks and balances. Lenski claims to have made an extraordinary find, using taxpayer funding, and at a minimum he should make his data available for independent scrutiny and verification. Apparently he has not yet done so, and I do not expect he will. You're the one insisting his claim is true, and you should want the data yourself before spreading what may be flawed. Otherwise, I doubt that even proof of a flaw in the data would affect your belief about it.--Aschlafly 10:41, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Wait one second, I never stated I had faith in his project, I have faith in his ability to conduct scientific investigation, and there is a difference. His reputation as a scientist is clean, as in he has yet to conduct himself in any questionable way to jeopardize the integrity of his research. I am a full supporter of check and balance when it comes to scientific investigation, to not be, as a scientist, is to claim absolution over understanding. I am sorry but I know of very few active researchers that would ever "refuse" to provide all of their findings once they have published, and Lenski is no exception. To refuse, is to call into question the scientist’s integrity and therefore their ability to conduct “clean” research. As a side, since the research is funded by a grant once the study is complete and the grant is closed out, all research related materials are available to the public through the freedom of information act. Aschlafly, have you emailed Lenski to verify that he will not release his data? If not then making a claim that he would not is just speculation which I find absurd considering how research science is conducted in the United States. I am insisting that his ability as a scientist is not some far fetched claim; you have not provided any evidence to make the statement that he would refuse to provide the data you are inquiring. Perhaps before you make the claim, you should provide some supporting evidence. As for spreading the claim of his conclusion, well I can not say that I have considering my past posts, I have yet to say his research conclusion is true, just that his research record is clean. The facts are: Lenski performed research, his conclusions are such. Everything else is speculation at this time, until a review has been done of his work it is just his conclusions. As for a flaw in his data, well until the data is presented once again your statement is speculation. I do not take things at face value like you seem to be implying, if anything, I am highly skeptical.--Able806 11:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
How do you know that the data is not available? Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Look on his website, where I saw that the key data are not there.
Able806, you're claiming that a conclusion is valid, yet you refuse to look at the data. Lenski isn't perfect, even if were unbiased. Accountability -- and valid science -- depends on independent verification, and the person asserting the claim bears the obligation of ensuring that.--Aschlafly 11:37, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I have not said his conclusions are valid, it was in the last post. I said they are just that, his conclusions. I stated that I was not interested in wasting my time evaluating his data because it holds no professional intrest to me. I research metabolic biochemistry of eukaryotes, I could care less about prokaryotes nor am I an evolutionary biochemist. I never said Lenski is perfect, I said that his record is clean in reguard to his research. I do not disagree with your last statement, however, you have yet to show that Lenski is at fault for not allowing independent verification. As for his website, well I saw a copyright of 2000, and 2003 so it is hard to tell when it was last updated. I do know however that PNAS does have a restriction on research materal until the time of publication. This is just speculation, but perhaps Lenski had to withhold the data from being placed upon his website until the article was published in order to comply with PNAS publication guidelines. You tax statement is a bit misleading, the majority (~75% very rough but the actual figures are avalible in the congressional budget statements from the GAO) of research conducted in the United States is funded by tax payers, Lenski is not doing anything out of the ordinary by having funds awarded from taxes.--Able806 11:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Draft email to Lenski

Based on the comments above, I suggest the following draft letter to Lenski:

"Dear Professor Lenski,

Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claim, and the significance of your claim, that E.Coli had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations. In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000.
PNAS submission guidelines state that "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." Also, your work was apparently funded by taxpayers, providing further reason for making the data publicly available.
Please post the data supporting your remarkable claim so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions. Thank you.
Conservapedia

--Aschlafly 09:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd leave this to a creation biologist who understands this sort of stuff far better than you or I do. Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Any independent review is welcome. So far, however, it doesn't seem like that has happened. I'll send the email now and we'll see if Lenski is even willing to make his taxpayer-funded data available for independent review.--Aschlafly 12:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
I second Philip on this one. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 13:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Please contact whomever you'd like to review the data.--Aschlafly 13:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Okay, have done so, and I've linked their answer in this post. Just kidding. That is, I was kidding about contacting someone, but some people did ask, and a creation biologist has today posted a response to the claims. You can read it here. Incidentally, he does indicate that sufficient data has not yet been made available (although doesn't make an issue of that). Philip J. Rayment 08:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I vote for us to watch science news with interest for further developments, and then read the paper when it is published and the reviews of scientists, and then discuss it. That would ordinarily be the usual method. Do we really have to do some sort of grandstanding email exchange, and start plastering challenges up on the front page blog again? Didn't we learn our lesson after the Austin Cline nonsense?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Just to note, to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is not a small thing. Their rejection rate is high due to the quality they demand from their papers. To make publication says much about the paper's quality. Perhaps it might have been better if Aschlafly had a scientist selected to review the data before emailing Lenski. Otherwise it might seem a waste of time on Lenski's part due to no indication that Aschlafly is trained to review and interpret such data.--Able806 15:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Am I crazy, or isn't this paper what Andy had been demanding?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, however Aschlafly wants the raw data.--Able806 15:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

"Yes however"? So if that's not what Andy's wanting, does that mean that TomMoore is crazy?? :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:47, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe it :) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

This debate continues at its more appropriate place: Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog.--Aschlafly 09:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Request For Move

Can you move 2008 Presidential Elections from here: 2008 Presidential Election to here: United States Presidential Election, 2008? It would keep it consistent with the article titles of previous elections. Thanks! --Jareddr 08:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Template:Stub

If you know anything about coding could you take a look at Template:Stub --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Block and threat

Why did I get blocked for one edit on Barack Obama, and have that followed up with a threat of a permanent block? I don't even know what I did wrong. The least you could do is post a message on my talk page (or maybe even tell me what rule I broke).JPohl 12:44, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

You reinserted a claim that the position of "Senior Lecturer" is equivalent to "Professor". Aside from being absurd, that claim had been addressed and reverted many times before, as reflected by the entry's history and talk page. It's getting tiresome for Obama supporters to insist on logical absurdities, and hence the warning.--Aschlafly 12:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Like the absurdity of the U of Chicago Law School putting out a press release stating that Obama "served as a professor". How absurd of them! --Jareddr 12:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I thought I was helping by putting in exactly what the university says about Obama. Also, your site should really enable blocked users to post on their talk pages. I can't access my e-mail from where I edit.JPohl 12:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Folks, I know how liberals love last wordism, and love the attention of continuing to fuss and insist on absurdities. A "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor". Accounts will be blocked if they insist on claiming it is. Finally got it?--Aschlafly 13:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to clear up my own confusion, because most of the time people don't say that "Senior Lecturer" is a "Professor". You say that, but most editors, quoting the press release, say that he "served as a professor"---note the lowercase "P". It's a slight difference that you seem to be confusing, and making, at least me, confused. Can you just state for the record, then, that "Senior Lecturer" does not "serve as a professor"? --Jareddr 13:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
No, that isn't what most editors here have said. The phrase "served as a professor" is meaningless and obviously not the same as claiming that he "was a professor." For example, someone who quips that he is "serving as your waiter" does not mean to say that he "is a waiter."
I'm not going to waste any more time on the fact, obvious to anyone with an open mind, that the position of "Senior Lecturer" is a far cry from the position of "Professor." Account blocking will begin for people who persist in making absurd claims.--Aschlafly 13:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Shutting down discussion on the topic and account blocking seems a case of last wordism--Jareddr 13:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
The University of Chicago clearly states that the position of senior Lecturer is equivalent to that of "professor." Why are you opposed to that fact being stated in the article? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 14:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
The press office of the Univ. of Chicago did not state that, and obviously a lecturer position is not equivalent to a professor position. Please read the vast debate on this topic on various talk pages here and do not insert something that is obviously false, even if you think someone else said it (it didn't).--Aschlafly 15:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually they did. Please read the statement given on their website. Is is not very long and should only take a minute or 2 to read. [4]--Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:33, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


FWIW, the statement says that he "served as a professor". --Jareddr 15:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, read my statement above about the difference between "serving as a waiter" and "being a waiter." And, though unnecessary to add this, if a press office at a college exaggerated someone's achievement on the faculty, would you automatically believe that despite clear evidence to the contrary?--Aschlafly 15:39, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Again, FWIW, you haven't provided "clear evidence to the contrary". Instead, you've insisted that it's "logical" and, I believe at one point, stated that "You don't need evidence for 2+2=4". But something being "logical" doesn't mean there's clear evidence to the contrary. And nothing provided thus far, despite how "logical" it may seem, is nowhere near as "clear evidence" as a statement by the institution in question. Again, just FWIW. --Jareddr 15:43, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
The statement by the college says that the position is equivalent to being a professor. If you choose to deny the fact, that is your prerogative. However, that does not make it true. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

A senior lecturer is not the equivalent of a full professor: if it were, he would be a professor and not a senior lecturer. It really isn't that difficult. Bugler 16:23, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

It is just a bit confusing when the employer said Obama "served as a professor". --Jareddr 16:27, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Clearly the quoted person is a Liberal and wanted to 'big up' the favoured candidate by exaggerating his achievements. Bugler 16:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Bugler, for stating the obvious.

Tim, does your view change when you realize that Obama was not being paid a professor's salary? Do you think the University of Chicago owes Obama back wages for a professor's salary?

Jareddr, it's only confusing if you think a press release or media can redefine the truth. They can't.--Aschlafly 16:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I guess I am confused because I thought an employer defines the truth of an employee's title and employment. Exactly who then does determine the title and status of an employee? --Jareddr 16:38, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr, no, press releases do not define the truth.--Aschlafly 16:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Why not structure the sentence like wikipedia does, and then say that there was controversy with the RNC and the Clinton camplaign pointing out his title was "senior lecturer", not "professor"? Here are the references that wikipedia gives: [5] and [6]. HenryS 16:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I haven't checked those links, but there's no denying what Obama's real position was. Truth is not relative here, or redefined by press releases.--Aschlafly 16:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia itself doesn't identify him as a professor. HenryS 16:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
As of 2:11 PM (GMT -8:00) it actually does. Regards, Aziraphale 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
"Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004).[19]". from early life and career section. HenryS 17:20, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I stopped reading after the first sentence of the second paragraph: "A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, served as a law school professor, and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004." Apparently, Wikipedia can't decide either. Nice try, though. Regards, Aziraphale 17:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I prefer referenced material. HenryS 17:37, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I suppose I would prefer it, too, if asked to choose, but as far as the statement "Wikipedia itself doesn't identify him as a professor," it both does in one place and doesn't in another. Regards, Aziraphale 17:50, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't read the lead, I expected this to be covered in the text, which it was. As far as that claim in the lead, it should be tagged as dubious. But this is a discussion for another place. HenryS 17:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
It is discussed in another place, on the talk page of the article you've cited. I expect your feedback will be as welcome there as anyone's. Regards, 18:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


Colleges

Why is it that you proudly point to colleges where your students have been accepted, even though the list includes schools that you decry as liberal? --IlTrovatore 22:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think there is any shame in being wanted by liberals!--Aschlafly 23:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to point out that this seems like a prime example of "last wordism". You deleted my next question without any justification other than that it was "nonsensical," thereby giving the impression that you "won" this "argument." If I remove the Biblical allusion and ask it again, would you permit that the discussion continue? --IlTrovatore 17:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

IlTrovatore, sometimes a conservative can have the last word. Really, it's OK sometimes. Liberals do not always have to insist on the last word. But watch how they do.--Aschlafly 17:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

So is last word-ism not also a conservative style? Thus is it not just a general tool of the argumentatively weak, not partisan to either side of the spectrum? --AndrasK 21:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

No, it isn't. Often, and probably most of the time, conservatives (such as myself) do not insist on having the last word.
More generally, one can usually tell the political views of someone based purely on observing his style of arguing.--Aschlafly 22:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I would presume that offering examples of the style in use would be justifiable evidence no? Why just say something when you can provide an example after all. --AndrasK 12:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

He deleted my liberal parables page, which included Gandhi's story, because it was vandalized once. Trust me, the two sides do not get equal treatment.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I do not expect them to on this site, but I am trying to find a way that is acceptable to the "higher-ups" to bring at least a modicum of balance to the site. --AndrasK 13:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Tom Moore's entry invited liberal vandalism and to this day he refuses to accept any accountability whatsoever for what happened and still complains about the deletion of the magnet for the vandalism. AndrasK, if you take that same approach, then unfortunately a similar deletion will occur. I know liberals loathe accountability, but this site embraces it.--Aschlafly 13:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I will happily take accountability for creating the article. I am not sure what else I am supposed to be accountable for. I mean, the conservative parables page invites vandalism on a scale immensely higher. Looking at its history right now, I see at least a dozen reverts on the previous fifty edits alone. And the deceit page, one of your darlings, has been vandalized... what, a hundred times?
If vandalism was a concern to you, you could have locked the page. You do as much for dozens of other "high-risk" pages here. As for me, I rather think that a single vandalism edit would mean that a full 20% or more of all the pages here would have to be similarly deleted, yes? The only accountability here is for a conservative afraid to let the other side be heard at all on his website, it seems to me.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The only accountability here is for a conservative afraid to let the other side be heard at all on his website - a rather arrogant and insulting observation from Conservapedia's own barrack room lawyer. Bugler 16:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I will of course not deliberately encourage any attack on any page in this site. I do, however, expect and believe that you will hold every entry in equality, especially with regards to treatment. It has been shown that some of your favorite pages have undergone countless vandalism attacks and have not suffered deletion. Thus it would only be reasonable that any page on this site cannot be deleted purely for the fact that vandals enjoy attacking it. --AndrasK 16:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

A better approach. I agree.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Add the following please

Tax Payers Fund Abortion

Planned Parenthood filed financial statements that include 1 billion dollars in earnings. The lives of 3 million innocent children were taken at its facilities. Planned Parenthood does all of this with over $305.3 million dollars a year of your tax money. [1]

It is nearly impossible to track funds the organization receives that may be used against Pro-life candidates. They are forbidden from using any family planning funds it receives from the government to advocate the political victory or defeat of any candidate. That "money is fungible," according to pro-life organizations. (Planned Parenthood's 'Attack Arm' Targets Pro-Life Candidates, CNSNews.com June 24, 2002)

Planned Parenthood has received $3.9 billion in federal taxpayer funds since 1987 [2]

All indicators point to more taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood if a Democrat is elected President.

Policies of the Federal Government and the Other States [3]

The federal government pays for abortions only when necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

  • It was the policy in twenty-seven states to fund abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered until the Clinton administration through threats and law suits forced funding for other exceptions in several of the states. (AL, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT)
  • Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest-- several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)
  • Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)
  • Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)
Simply create a new entry like taxpayer-funded abortion, insert your material, and let's build it up with more references. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
The abortion page is locked. I will post to that talk page for inclusion.--jp 23:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I suggested posting it to taxpayer-funded abortion.--Aschlafly 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Very good, thanks--jp 23:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
You are a good person. I was meaning to start a new page with this information. I couldn't access my original citations so I hadn't gotten to it yet. I saw it on the home page. God bless. --jp 20:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to let you know as crazy as it sounds, the page has made no.8 on page 1 of Google already (tax payer funded abortion) and (taxpayer funded abortion).
That's amazing! Thanks for the info.--Aschlafly 21:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Article, Faith

I removed some things only because they were underdeveloped. I actually improved the Christianity in the article, I wasn't intending to remove it. And in fact I was getting ready to re-add some of those back in because I thought I could incorporate them better into changes I had just made. Do you mind if I revert and do that? --Ymmotrojam 15:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, sorry, but the version I saw has been expunged of how faith is a Christian concept. In fact, Christianity was not even mentioned, directly or indirectly, on the first page of the entry. The censoring of Christianity from the entry appears to have happened over a two-month period.
Please feel free to edit it, but I would not favor a dilution of how faith is a Christian concept different from the "belief" of other religions.--Aschlafly 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
My main goal with this editing is to show a biblical definition, and that by implication is a Christian definition of faith. And then we can show how that precise biblical or Christian definition differs from the false-faiths of other religions. Sound good? I just think we need to make the definition of faith clear first before we go making the claim that Christianity is the only "right" faith (although I agree with that). --Ymmotrojam 15:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Haeckel and "ethical atheism"

Andy,

Take a look at this old NY Times article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF

March 9, 1907, Saturday

Page 1, 238 words

BERLIN, March 8. -- Emperor William to-day bestowed on Prof. Ernst Haeckel, the celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism, the title of Excellency, in honor of his golden jubilee as a doctor. Conservative 03:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Very ineresting. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Supreme Court Project

Is the Supreme Court Project still active? It looks like it was just forgotten about. --MichaelK 19:48, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia abortion article ranked #4 by Google USA

Andy our abortion article is now ranked #4 by Google USA (see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abortion&btnG=Google+Search ) and I do think it is very doable to knock out the #3 Google article from its position as the religioustolerance.org material is exceedingly weak in my estimation - plus we have knocked out their material from past top Google positions before due to the weakness of their material (they pretend to cover all positions but I believe it is a farce as the conservative position is represented weakly). I think we could have an internationally ranked high article for abortion and gain a higher Google rank for Google USA by doing the following: 1) have the article cover more of the international material like our homosexuality article does 2)tell others about our abortion article 3) challenge religioustolerance.org to a debate and they have a blog where we could do this 4) challenge others to a debate 5) there are other things we could do as well. I would like our abortion article to rank high across the board at Google for the various countries (Google UK, Google Australia, Google Ireland, etc. etc. ) like our theory of evolution, atheism, and homosexuality articles. Please feel free to contact me about this matter. Conservative 20:22, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow!!!--Aschlafly 21:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Link

Andy, I am sure you will find interesting this link: User:TomMoore/StolenImages --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama and "Affirmative Action President"

I added the phrase, "a term c