Jump to: navigation, search

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

11 bytes removed, 22:01, 6 May 2007
== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia]] ==
#. Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation. #. Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead. #. Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist." #. To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists. #. Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young." #. Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong. #. Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction. #. Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking. #. Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs. #. Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes. #. Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).