User talk:Rocky

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Rocky, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Rocky!

Please, feel free to talk here.

Well, the time has come for me to return! Please write stuff down. --Rocky

I was being sarcastic. It seems funny that Conservapedia would use Fox News as a source for science reporting since Fox reports on evolution like it really happened. MAnderson 17:11, 29 April 2008 (EDT)


Hi, I hope you don't mind but I did a quick spell check of your essay. I know you requested users did not edit it and instead discussed it on the talk page, but I've made sure that content was not changed beyond a few letters. Happy editing StatsMsn 07:43, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, man. I am terrible at spelling. Really apprechiate (probabily spelt that wrong) the edits. --Rocky

Rocky Horror

I was a bit puzzled by your message, but then I went and checked my edit history. That's actually not my article. I simply redirected an erroneous title to the correct one (which I shouldn't have done since it's against CP's guidelines). Jinxmchue 00:57, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I see. Well, I still changed it, if you want to see it. Yeah. Wow, it is harder to think up something to say now than it was when I had to write that essay for English. Anyway, thanks for telling me. --Rocky



If you want to start a debate, then please do the following:

I'll leave those pages there for another day or so, but if you don't put your own views there by then, I'll delete those pages.

I realise you're still new to all this, so don't take this as telling you off; just giving you some guidance.

Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)


Don't worry, you did not sound like you were telling me off. I put in the debates my own opinion. You can access the one about athisim here and the one about homosexual marrage here. Thank you for telling me that. I was wondering why nobody was responding. Thank you, again. --Rocky

Question of the Week

I believe that Bush is a good president in most aspects. I don't use the e-mail thing. sorry... ~BCSTalk2ME 09:51, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

That's cool with the email thing. What aspects do you think that he is good with? --User:Rocky
Pro-life, same-sex marriages, gun control... ~BCSTalk2ME 17:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)


I would suggest that you use Firefox as your browser and install the spell-checker. It would appear that you are in need of some assistance. (I'm trying to put this as nicely as I can.) BrianCo 18:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

The Conservapedia:Manual of Style page has spell-checker downloads under "spelling" if you are interested. FernoKlumpLeave me a death threat!! 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Matt Shepard

If what you included was real information, then cite it; otherwise, it will be removed as possible libel. Karajou 20:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Theistic Evolution

Rocky, does your "theistic evolution" include one Adam and Eve? Real evolution does not. But Christian doctrine relies on one Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids in Humani Generis teaching anything contrary to that, for obvious reasons: the meaning of Jesus depends on Adam.--Aschlafly 19:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Did Adam and Eve really exist? I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I don't care if they really existed because it is more important to link Adam and Eve symbolically than it is to say that they actually existed and that people that don't believe it are wrong. Jesus was the new Adam, symbolically because Jesus was man's next attempt to be sinless (for lack of a better word). Maybe there was a humanlike creature, one male and one female, that came from evolution to be Adam and Eve (again, I wasn't there). However, what I believe is more important than saying that they existed and you shouldn't say anything different than that, is less important than how much, symbolically, Adam and Eve are intertwind. --Rocky
Jesus's life and Crucifixion and Resurrection make little sense without one Adam and Eve, who could not have existed under any theory of evolution. What theistic evolution does is persuade people to abandon faith in Jesus without immediately realizing it. Clever, isn't it?--Aschlafly 19:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
It is pretty clever. However, why are Adam and Eve not known symbollically instead of reality? What I mean by that is, why does it matter if they really existed because the story symbolizes a lot more than their existance, right? --Rocky
Also, how could Jesus' life and the Crusifiction and Resurrection not have made sense without Adam and Eve? --Rocky
Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection was redemption for the original sin committed by one Adam and Eve, which passed through them to all descendants. This is Christianity.
My own objection to the theory of evolution is scientific. But I point out there is really no such thing as theistic (Christian) evolution, except as way-station leading someone away from Christianity.--Aschlafly 22:17, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Whilst strict theistic evolution would have no Adam and Eve, a modified version could have God creating an actual Adam and Eve, or creating souls for a pair of existing hominids who then became Adam and Eve. But of course this is a compromise view because the naturalistic evolutionary view simply doesn't fit the biblical account, and if you are going to reject the naturalistic view, why not just stick with what the Bible says?

Andy is right that theistic evolution leads people to abandon faith in Jesus (although that doesn't mean that it will always happen).

The problem with suggesting that Adam and Eve are merely symbolic is that while symbolism is useful for making conceptual connections and illustrating ideas, it is not a basis for doctrine. So if we say that Jesus came to save us from sin, which was introduced with Adam and Eve, but that Adam and Eve are only symbolic, then symbols can't introduce sin, so sin is either non-existent or symbolic, and in either case we don't need to be saved from it, which means that we don't need Jesus. The following quote is from an atheist who that understands this better than many Christians:

It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

Philip J. Rayment 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I just read this:

Sherwood Taylor, Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said in 1949:

‘In England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.'[1]

Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that God guided evolution, unlike most people seem to believe, which is that most people that believe in evolution are athiests. I do think, however, that Adam and Eve did not exist. I think that sin is human beings going to their animalistic instincts. For instance, people that chose to have sex with multiple partners that they don't really care about. That is like an animal because all animals except humans are not capable of loving one another and simply have sex to procreate. Also, when someone kills someone else, that could be a territorial thing. For instance, if someone broke into my house, I would be scared and might kill them because they are invading my territory. However, with this one, humans can be worse than animals because humans are the only animals that kill for pleasure. --Rocky

PS. Although I will not be back for some time, please do respond because when I come back on June 1st, I want to know somebody wanted to answer. Thanks. --Rocky