Changes

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].  On June 26th 2008, around 5:30 PST, the vast majority of the discussion on this page (dating back upwards of two weeks) was deleted with no explanation given.  

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].

== Reply to comments in archive ==

== Reply to comments in archive ==

== Liberal Tools ==

== Liberal Tools ==

These are the tools used by liberals according to the "Liberal Tools" entry on Conservapedia.  Judge for yourselves whether anyone else on this website makes use of these themselves!

These are the tools used by liberals according to the entry on Conservapedia.  Judge for yourselves whether anyone else on this website makes use of these themselves!

Deceit - Aschlafly and others here accused Professor Richard Lenski of fraud without proof, and they also claim that the data in question has not been made available.  But a simple reading of Prof. Lenski's second response reveals that he has made all data available, including the bacteria used in the study (provided that the logistics of transporting such sensitive material are handled properly).

Deceit - Aschlafly and others here accused Professor Richard Lenski of fraud without proof, and they also claim that the data in question has not been made available.  But a simple reading of Prof. Lenski's second response reveals that he has made all data available, including the bacteria used in the study (provided that the logistics of transporting such sensitive material are handled properly).

Censorship - Just count the number of posts deleted or the threats of blocking or banning for daring to suggest an alternative approach to dialog with Prof. Lenski!  Especially by users Bugler or Philip J. Rayment.

Censorship - Just count the number of posts deleted or the threats of blocking or banning for daring to suggest an alternative approach to dialog with Prof. Lenski!  Especially by users Bugler or Philip J. Rayment.

Capturing and misleading youth - Many of the original Conservapedia editors are homeschooled students of Aschlafly.

Capturing and misleading youth - Many of the original Conservapedia editors are homeschooled students of Aschlafly.

Undermining religion - It undermines and insults God when Aschlafly and others insist that He could have never used evolution as His mechanism for breathing life onto the Earth.

Undermining religion - It undermines and insults God when Aschlafly and others insist that He could have never used evolution as His mechanism for breathing life onto the Earth.

Mocking conservative science - Science is not biased towards liberalism or conservatism, being as they are political philosophies.  Scientists can have political opinions, but science can't.  The arguments by Aschlafly and others have not been accepted as scientific by other scientists and therefore fall outside the realm of science.

Mocking conservative science - Science is not biased towards liberalism or conservatism.  Some scientists are.  The arguments by Aschlafly and others have not been accepted as scientific by other scientists are therefore fall outside the realm of science.

Portraying criminals and miscreants as being conservative when, in fact, they are not - Prof. Lenski and others who have contributed to this discussion have been called "atheists" and "liberals" when there is no proof that they hold such beliefs.

Portraying criminals and miscreants as being conservative when, in fact, they are not - Prof. Lenski and others who have contributed to this discussion have been called "atheists" and "liberals" when there is no proof that they hold such beliefs.