https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=FredConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T21:21:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Controversy&diff=320886Global Warming Controversy2007-10-22T23:00:04Z<p>Fred: /* Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>The controversy over the science of [[global warming]] is mainly over the extent of human contribution to warming, as well as a dispute over predictions of near-future warming and its effect on human beings and the environment.<br />
<br />
Among registered U.S. voters, opinion is split neatly down the middle, with 75% of Democrats believing that "the science is settled" in favor of Al Gore's view and 73% of Republicans affirming that there is no scientific consensus.<br />
<br />
In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties belive in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact--and vast amounts of money could be wasted in curbing CO2 emissions when there is no need. On the other hand, if anthropogenic warming is occurring, then no amount of public denial will cool the climate down again--only positive action will.<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
*[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=303 Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and Solutions] - public opinion poll by Pew Research Center</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=310232Dinosaur2007-10-05T21:15:03Z<p>Fred: /* Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]<br />
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning "terrible lizard."<br />
<br />
==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==<br />
[[Image:Osborn.jpg|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]<br />
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.<br />
<br />
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,<br />
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref><br />
<br />
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.<br />
<br />
In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur Species==<br />
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref><br />
<br />
== Different Perspectives == <br />
<br />
Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. <br />
<br />
===Creationary Perspective===<br />
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]<br />
[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.<br />
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.<br />
<br />
They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> <br />
<br />
They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.<br />
<br />
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".<br />
<br />
==== Extinction ====<br />
<br />
Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref><br />
<br />
Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====<br />
<br />
Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.<br />
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]<br />
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.<br />
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" /><br />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref><br />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" /><br />
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.<br />
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.<br />
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref><br />
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref><br />
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.<br />
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" /><br />
<br />
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs<br />
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" /><br />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.<br />
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] <br />
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.<br />
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.<br />
<br />
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref><br />
<br />
<!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.<ref>[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]</ref> Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --><br />
<br />
==== Dinosaurs and birds ====<br />
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.<br />
<br />
In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:<br />
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:<br />
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref><br />
<br />
===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===<br />
<br />
The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.<br />
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. <br />
<br />
====Extinction====<br />
<br />
According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> Iridium, a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is found worldwide in rocks of the age of the supposed impact. The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula of the same age. <ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref> Creationists assert that the methods used by modern geologists are flawed, and of course even if the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs--although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks dated as younger than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks dated as prior to it.<br />
<br />
====An Explosion of new species ====<br />
<br />
The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs and Birds====<br />
<br />
As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==<br />
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><br />
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
Evolutionists point out that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<br />
<br />
Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" /><br />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=310231Dinosaur2007-10-05T21:09:44Z<p>Fred: /* Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]<br />
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning "terrible lizard."<br />
<br />
==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==<br />
[[Image:Osborn.jpg|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]<br />
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.<br />
<br />
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,<br />
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref><br />
<br />
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.<br />
<br />
In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur Species==<br />
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref><br />
<br />
== Different Perspectives == <br />
<br />
Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. <br />
<br />
===Creationary Perspective===<br />
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]<br />
[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.<br />
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.<br />
<br />
They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> <br />
<br />
They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.<br />
<br />
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".<br />
<br />
==== Extinction ====<br />
<br />
Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref><br />
<br />
Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====<br />
<br />
Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.<br />
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]<br />
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.<br />
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" /><br />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref><br />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" /><br />
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.<br />
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.<br />
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref><br />
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref><br />
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.<br />
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" /><br />
<br />
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs<br />
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" /><br />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.<br />
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] <br />
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.<br />
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.<br />
<br />
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref><br />
<br />
<!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.<ref>[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]</ref> Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --><br />
<br />
==== Dinosaurs and birds ====<br />
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.<br />
<br />
In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:<br />
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:<br />
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref><br />
<br />
===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===<br />
<br />
The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.<br />
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. <br />
<br />
====Extinction====<br />
<br />
According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> Iridium, a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is found worldwide in rocks of the age of the supposed impact. The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula of the same age. <ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref> Creationists assert that the methods used by modern geologists are flawed, and of course even if the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs--although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks dated as younger than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks dated as prior to it.<br />
<br />
====An Explosion of new species ====<br />
<br />
The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs and Birds====<br />
<br />
As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==<br />
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><br />
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
Evolutionists point out that geologic dating of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<br />
<br />
Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" /><br />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=310230Dinosaur2007-10-05T21:09:06Z<p>Fred: /* Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]<br />
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning "terrible lizard."<br />
<br />
==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==<br />
[[Image:Osborn.jpg|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]<br />
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.<br />
<br />
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,<br />
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref><br />
<br />
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.<br />
<br />
In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur Species==<br />
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref><br />
<br />
== Different Perspectives == <br />
<br />
Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. <br />
<br />
===Creationary Perspective===<br />
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]<br />
[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.<br />
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.<br />
<br />
They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> <br />
<br />
They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.<br />
<br />
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".<br />
<br />
==== Extinction ====<br />
<br />
Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref><br />
<br />
Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====<br />
<br />
Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.<br />
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]<br />
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.<br />
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" /><br />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref><br />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" /><br />
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.<br />
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.<br />
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref><br />
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref><br />
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.<br />
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" /><br />
<br />
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs<br />
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" /><br />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.<br />
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] <br />
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.<br />
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.<br />
<br />
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref><br />
<br />
<!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.<ref>[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]</ref> Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --><br />
<br />
==== Dinosaurs and birds ====<br />
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.<br />
<br />
In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:<br />
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:<br />
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref><br />
<br />
===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===<br />
<br />
The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.<br />
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. <br />
<br />
====Extinction====<br />
<br />
According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> Iridium, a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is found worldwide in rocks of the age of the supposed impact. The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula of the same age. <ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref> Creationists assert that the methods used by modern geologists are flawed, and of course even if the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs--although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks dated as younger than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks dated as prior to it.<br />
<br />
====An Explosion of new species ====<br />
<br />
The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs and Birds====<br />
<br />
As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==<br />
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><br />
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
It is often pointed out that geologic dating of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<br />
<br />
Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" /><br />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=310226Dinosaur2007-10-05T21:05:25Z<p>Fred: /* Extinction */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]<br />
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning "terrible lizard."<br />
<br />
==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==<br />
[[Image:Osborn.jpg|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]<br />
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.<br />
<br />
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,<br />
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref><br />
<br />
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.<br />
<br />
In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur Species==<br />
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref><br />
<br />
== Different Perspectives == <br />
<br />
Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. <br />
<br />
===Creationary Perspective===<br />
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]<br />
[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.<br />
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.<br />
<br />
They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> <br />
<br />
They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.<br />
<br />
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".<br />
<br />
==== Extinction ====<br />
<br />
Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref><br />
<br />
Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====<br />
<br />
Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.<br />
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]<br />
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.<br />
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" /><br />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref><br />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" /><br />
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.<br />
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.<br />
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref><br />
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref><br />
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.<br />
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" /><br />
<br />
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs<br />
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" /><br />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.<br />
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] <br />
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.<br />
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.<br />
<br />
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref><br />
<br />
<!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.<ref>[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]</ref> Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --><br />
<br />
==== Dinosaurs and birds ====<br />
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.<br />
<br />
In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:<br />
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:<br />
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:<br />
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref><br />
<br />
===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===<br />
<br />
The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.<br />
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. <br />
<br />
====Extinction====<br />
<br />
According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> Iridium, a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is found worldwide in rocks of the age of the supposed impact. The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula of the same age. <ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref> Creationists assert that the methods used by modern geologists are flawed, and of course even if the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs--although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks dated as younger than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks dated as prior to it.<br />
<br />
====An Explosion of new species ====<br />
<br />
The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref><br />
<br />
====Dinosaurs and Birds====<br />
<br />
As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==<br />
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><br />
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" /><br />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" /><br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/archive19&diff=267518Talk:Main Page/archive192007-08-14T23:52:23Z<p>Fred: /* undocumented immigrant murders three college students */</p>
<hr />
<div>== [[Democrat]] [[Al Gore]]'s son pleads guilty to possession... ==<br />
<br />
...of marijuana and "other drugs". Yet another example of what a liberal upbringing will do to a person.<br />
<br />
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/30/al-gores-son-pleads-guilty-to-drug-charges/<br />
<br />
:Ah--(ahem)--that's nice, but that is ''not'' what we mean when we say that we "will not lay off the [[Democrat]]s." Our criticisms of Democratic Party politicians have their bases in:<br />
#Public policy.<br />
#Different views of mankind and the world.<br />
#Demonstrable instances of hypocrisy.<br />
So far as I know, Albert A. Gore III never once said that drugs were a bad thing. (Nor did he kill anyone in the course of the felony to which he has now pleaded guilty.) So if he gets arrested for drugs, and arraigned, that's not news. That's simply lame gossip.<br />
<br />
As to the father, well, sure, a father bears some responsibility for a son's misbehavior. But that still doesn't make the son's misdemeanors--or even felonies--newsworthy.<br />
<br />
Now if Albert A. Gore ''Junior'' had been taking drugs, and had been doing that ''while he was holding public office'', that might have been newsworthy.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: No, we will not be putting that item on the Front Page.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Wrong headline media news Hillary ==<br />
<br />
The headline '''Hillary Clinton in the News 20 Times More Than GOP Candidates''' is wrong. If you follow the link you will find a Pew research report [http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/344.pdf] giving figures for the question ''Can you tell me the name of the candidate you’ve heard the MOST about in the news lately?''. This doesn't mean that Hilary was in the news 20 times more often, it just means that she was remembered 20 times more often. One reason could be that she is in the news more often, but there could be various other reasons why people name her first. The high figures for Obama indicate that it could be due to the Hillary vs Obama theme, which might be more captivating than any news about Republican candidates. But as I said, the figures of the Pew Research center don't tell. The headline should read '''People remember Hillary 20 times better'''. Also, I wonder why the front page doesn't cite the Pew numbers directly. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 20:55<br />
<br />
: Being in the news more often doesn't mean you're a better candidate, don't forget. Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy is most particularly newsworthy because she's not only a woman running for president, but the wife of a former president. She's also competing with a black presidential candidate. To a lot of people, that's more interesting than anything most of the other candidates have to say right now. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Did I say that she is a better candidate? Where? I said that people remember her better. And indeed it could have been because she is a woman, because people dislike her, because people like her, or because her campaign staff is better in getting the message across, or because people find the Obama-Hillary showdown more interesting than whether Thompson will run or not, or for whatever other reason. The study doesn't tell. What Is said is that the headline is wrong, and is still wrong as of today, while it would be easy to fix. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:44<br />
<br />
:Order, It's just your [[liberal]] opinion that the headline is wrong... and it stays. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:49, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, another example of gross misrepresentation on the front page. "Newsbusters" has proven itself to be a joke. Still not sure how reporting on the Dow more than the GDP is "liberal" bias. Whatever. Clearly Conservapedia isn't interested in the facts. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Where did I voice an opinion, especially where did I voice a liberal opinion? Calling someone a liberal is a poor substitute for an argument, especially when it is not a political argument. Can you tell me how the question on the questionnaire, relates to the headline on the frontpage? And can you tell me how much news on the frontpage helps Conservapedia, if a click on the source reveals that the editor who put it there didn't read the source carefully, or even made a mistake interpreting it. And I am not talking about the political interpretation, but about actually reading the captions. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:55<br />
<br />
Order, let's discuss your last entry:<br />
**'''Where did I voice an opinion?''' How about "''the headline is wrong''". That's YOUR opinion. <br />
:::Actually it is true, not an opinion. Read on.<br />
**'''Where did I voice a liberal opinion?''' How about "''The high figures for Obama indicate that it could be due to the Hillary vs Obama theme, which might be more captivating than any news about Republican candidates''". Sounds like a liberal opinion to me. <br />
:::No, it isn't. You could ask people what is more interesting. Are they more curious about who will be the democratic contender, Hillary or Obama, or are they curious about whether Thompson decides to run or not. If the former is found more interesting, it could be the explanation that they remember Hillary and Obama better than Thompson. It just like people remember Paris Hilton better, than say Duncan Hunter; not because she is nicer, but because her story is more interesting. There is nothing liberal about this statement, its a hypothesis about why Obama and Hillary are remembered much more often. Your hypothesis is that it is because MSN mentions Hillary 20 times more often, but that is also just a hypothesis, and none of them is supported by the data. However the headline wrongly suggest that the data supports the second hypothesis.[[User:Order]] 1 August, 13:34<br />
<br />
**Your suggested headline "''People remember Hillary 20 times better''", is something a liberal would love to see - NOT a conservative. I have changed it to the new [[NewsBusters]] headline "More People See Hillary in the News Than Any GOP Presidential Candidate".<br />
:::Sorry, but the data suggest that people do remember her 21 times better. Or if you want 21 times more people remember to have seen Hillary than say Thompson. Nothing liberal about that either. Its in the data. Don't quote the data if you don't like it. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 13:34<br />
:The [[MSM]] uses [[liberal bias]] to dominate the news favoring Democratic candidates, and naturally, people will hear about Hillary more often than Mitt. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 22:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::This might very well be true. However the data doesn't say so. But the headline wrongly suggest it does. Can you point to a page, and preferably a table, with that information? I challenge you. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 13:34<br />
<br />
::Naturally. It just stands to reason.[[User:SumsUp|SumsUp]] 22:52, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Well, let's not forget that, campaigning aside, Hillary gets in the news frequently for being a high-profile Senator, while Mitt...um...what exactly is Mitt's job again? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Portly, your [[Essay:Liberal Style|liberal style]] is showing...<br />
:::*over-reliance on mockery<br />
::Didnt Crocoite get the last word?[[User:SumsUp|SumsUp]] 23:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No, you did. Wait!? Now me. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]<br />
:::*insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate<br />
::: --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
It seems like the headline has been fixed. thanks [[User:Order]] 2 August 2:11<br />
<br />
==Border Fence = Animal Killer!==<br />
<br />
I thought you guys might be interested in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6924475.stm this]. Illegal Immigrants versus the environment. <br />
[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 14:05, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This article proves there are liberals in Mexico too. Cactus fences? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Im sorry, but animals are tasty...perhaps animals caught up by the fence could be put to use somehow.[[User:SumsUp|SumsUp]] 23:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Wikia - "for-profit company" ==<br />
<br />
From the ''Building a Wiki World'' article is this gem:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Late in the day, we find Wales at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He's about to give a lecture to a group of eager graduate students when one of the school's instructors bounds up to shake his hand. "I'll give you a brief introduction before you go on," he says, waving a piece of paper. "Just a bit of biographical information that I downloaded from Wikipedia." <br />
<br />
A look of mild alarm crosses Wales' face. "You'd better let me have a look at that first," he says. Sure enough, <u>Wales' own Wikipedia entry contains an error, misstating his date of birth</u>. The error, which stems from a mistake on Wales' birth certificate, is something of an <u>inside joke among hard-core Wikipedians, who '''keep deliberately reintroducing it''' despite Wales' best efforts to correct the record</u>.</blockquote> --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== '''Which of these is a crime in America?''' ==<br />
<br />
A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine. <br><br />
B) [[Flag desecration in the United States of America|Burning the American flag]]. <br><br />
C) Putting a [[Koran]] in a toilet. <br><br />
[[Michelle Malkin]] gives the answer [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/30/which-of-these-is-a-crime-in-america/ here] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Scary! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:52, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Minor correction needed for the front page==<br />
The line actually should read "Wiki''media'' search engine to let users influence web results rankings". Wiki''pedia'' is an encyclopedia, not a search engine; the two are connected, but by no means the same thing. Also this consistent attack of Wikia as a "for-profit" company smacks of liberalism. Since when do conservatives sneer at people trying to make money through entrepreneurship? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Actually I was wrong, it seems Wikia is not part of Wikimedia. I guess I sort of knew that. The headline should say "''Wikia'' search engine to let users influence web results rankings". [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lindsay McCreith Story Regarding Healthcare (and Michael Moore) ==<br />
<br />
The sentence "He'd be dead now if he stayed within his Canadian health care system" is unfounded, and isn't mentioned in the cited article at all. In fact, the article states that he has low-grade astrocytoma, which is slow growing. Therefore I can only conclude that the sentence is what one might call a false and deceiving statement at worst, and a "speculative statement" at best.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, as a Canadian who works in the health care industry, I see the long wait times for MRI and surgeries, and it isn't correct for Moore to say (in an interview) that Canadians got the right idea about health care. However, using exaggeration and (let's face it) false statement is not the way to bring the message across.<br />
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry, but Moore didn't praise Canada's health care system by any means in ''Sicko''. Admittedly, he could've and probably should've done more to describe some of the negative aspects to the system, but in no way did he praise it or suggest that we should convert our system over to the Canadian one. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 13:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, you'd better tell Peter Howell of The Toronto Star that he also misunderstood Moore's movie! He wrote about the movie, "Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo."[http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/215801]<br />
<br />
: After you complain to Howell, then let us know if we should still change our reference. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Isn't this the site that [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|doesn't take journalists' opinions as fact]]? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I wrote Mr. Howell a short letter with my grievances. I doubt I'll get a response. But seriously - such random sniping of prominent left-wingers hurts this site's reputation. What they say half the time rebuts itself; why intervene? I actually went to see sicko, and I urge everyone here to as well - not because I think you'll be persuaded to endorse socialized medicine, but simply so you can make your own critical analysis of the film without relying on others. Enough with the group think that's so rampant among us conservatives! We don't have to regurgitate every talking point we hear on Fox News... we're allowed to come to our own opinions about things. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It's been a day, and the speculative statement "He'd be dead now if he stayed within his Canadian health care system" is still up there. Does the Main Page not follow the same standards as the articles on Conservapedia? If not, it should, at the very least, follow "facts" - but I guess not, since most article links include a quip about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket (which is an opinion, not fact). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Folks, someone here tried to pretend that Sicko doesn't praise the Canadian system, and perhaps he thought he could fool us with that claim. But this is how to handle such claims: find a more credible liberal who tells the truth and thereby disproves it, which I did. That isn't regurgitating Fox News. I don't even think Fox News carried this story!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Man, how I regret bringing ΨtrykeЯ's comments together with my own.<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The problem with your methodology, Andy, is that you can arbitrarily choose someone who shares your viewpoint and, upon finding that claim corroborated, declare it the ''de facto'' truth. Reality doesn't work like that, and reality is simple: Moore didn't praise or glorify the Canadian healthcare system. And no liberal that I'm aware is proposing we adopt it, except in the most generalized terms as "universal healthcare." Everyone agrees that it's a system mired by bureaucracy and loopholes and not suitable for our country.<br />
<br />
:''Opinions'' don't trump '''facts.''' I'd pull up a quote from Moore saying that he wasn't trying to glorify the Canadian health care system, but then he'd just be practicing [[liberal]] [[deceit]], right? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:46, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Now Obama, the anti-war candidate, wants to invade another country ==<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that after this announcement the liberals are going to drop him like a bad habit.<br />
<br />
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1<br />
<br />
--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 10:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I hate to say it, but he's right. If Pakistan is sheltering terrorists, then we need to go and kill those terrorists. Osama is hiding there somewhere. Of course, troops aren't the only option. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Search Wikia Quote. ==<br />
<br />
Jimmy Wales said ""When I opened Wikipedia with only three articles in it, it was a pretty bad encyclopedia".<br />
<br />
That's the quotation from the front page - punctuation error included. This has nothing to do with the article, and is using the quote out of context. Wales was talking about the beginnings of Wikipedia, and is trying to compare it to his new startup project Search Wikia, which he says won't be very good at the beginning. The second line was omitted on the Main Page here. Twisting a quotation out of context isn't a proper practice here on Conservapedia, is it? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:17, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== How long before the Wikipedia volunteers wise up and revolt? ==<br />
<br />
I say three months, tops, before that place goes down in flames.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:A little optimistic there, eh?<br />
:I'm not very familiar with Wikia, but I thought most Wikipedia volunteers don't participate in the company's projects? And those of them who do get paid. I don't see why there would be a revolution. After all, there was some outrage about Wales overturning the vote on no-follow tags, but no "mass strike" or "resignations", nor any big "class action". I still edit there despite of that (unless I hear more about Wale's evil-doings). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:02, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The brain drain has already been occurring at Wikipedia. Smart people don't like to volunteer their efforts only to be used and manipulated by a for-profit project benefiting others. If you don't believe me, look and see how few people volunteer at Microsoft or Google.<br />
<br />
:: I agree that dumber people won't catch on for a while, and they're likely to continue toiling at Wikipedia. But they'll eventually wake up too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ouch, was that a thinly-veiled attack on my intelligence? =P<br />
:::I don't have problem of his purported manipulations... I volunteer in a hospital (well, in Canada it's non-profit, but I'm sure there isn't a lack of volunteers in US hospitals), and I don't mind my efforts even if my hospital is for profit. The only source of frustration for me is battling vandalism - or worse, people who believe in false facts - but I am still optimistic about the future of Wikipedia. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I didn't intend to attack your intelligence. :-) I didn't even know if you are a Wikipedia volunteer. But, to your point, how often do you volunteer at a for-profit hospital or corporation? Not too much, I bet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah I usually only volunteer once a week at my hospital. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:45, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Actually a lot of people would probably like to work as intern at Microsoft or Google, even for free. But thats another issue, since both were always for-profit companies with excellent R&D departments. But you are quite right that the open source and free for all community can be fairly unforgiving. [[User:Order]] 2 augus 2:28 (AET)<br />
<br />
: I doubt that "a lot of people" would like to work at Microsoft or Google for free. If so, it is likely to be inversely proportional to intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] do you mean [[Wikipedia]] the free liberally biased encyclopedia or the equally evil, for-profit company [[Wikia]], which aims to make money from user-generated content? [[User:EdDeTour|EdDeTour]] 12:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry and but did you say at some point that Conservapedia has a lot of respect for scholars. It happens to be the case that some of the smartest and best educated computer scientists and software engineers work at Microsoft and Google, and a lots of very smart people would love to work with them. Even for free. You might not like their products, but their labs are world class. [[User:Order]] 2:45 (AET)<br />
<br />
:Working as an intern at Google or Microsoft isn't exactly "for free". You build connections and stack your resume, so even though there's no immediate monetary return, there is an increase in career potential. (This is also one of the reasons I volunteer at a hospital.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:47, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Indeed, and thats exactly why a lot of people would love to do it. [[User:Order]]<br />
<br />
I have to say I find it very strange the fuss that this site makes over the no-follow links decision at Wikipedia. There was a vote 2 years ago. About 150 people participated (out of many thousands of eligible accounts). It didn't really affect Wikipedia as much as it did other search engines, so it wasn't a huge issue. Does anyone really expect a big revolt about it? I was an active contributor at the time, and I didn't even know about the vote, and wouldn't have cared even if I did. It's a pretty minor issue. Why the big fuss here? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:07, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: how exactly do you know that the "brain drain" is already occuring at Wikipedia? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 14:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletions of discussions. ==<br />
<br />
Today is the first time I heard that Conservapedia reported a user to the FBI. Did something funny happen, because the entire discussion gets deleted. I could understand that the sysops don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation, but I can't understand why a fairly benign discussion gets deleted twice. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=257542][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=257630]<br />
Did anything that was said in this discussion in violation with Conservapedia policy? [[User:Order]] 2 August 2:22(AET)<br />
<br />
:Order, vandalism is obviously wrong and against the law, and flagrant vandalism has been reported to the FBI. Obviously the investigation is not a topic for discussion on this main talk page or anywhere else in this encyclopedia project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This explain the bit. Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Order]] 2 August 2:38(AET)<br />
<br />
== Today in History ==<br />
<br />
It's been blank for the last couple of days. What happened?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 13:03, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Apparently, nothing. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:15, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Maybe you could make some suggestions for it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:55, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Question about the Murdoch/WSJ comment ==<br />
<br />
I am confused by the comment "The newspaper industry is collapsing before our eyes." Was this intended to mean that Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ is also sign of the industry collapse? Or is it just a comment about the state of things in general? Thanks to whoever can clear this up for me.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 18:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:To latch on to Conservateur's enquiry: how can the owner of the most often cited news source on this site ([[Fox News]]) buying a conservative newspaper be bad for conservatives? Or for the newspaper industry? Wouldn't that make it more appealing to conservatives who rail against [[liberal bias]] in the main stream media? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Misleading front page news NYT ==<br />
<br />
The quote belonging to the head line '''New York Times inadvertently condemns Democrats''' wrongly suggests that it is a NYT quote. However, it is a quote by Thomas E. Brewton. NYT did not write these words, and suggesting otherwise is misleading. The frontpage should mention Brenton. Better would even if the front page would link directly to the NYT article that ''inadvertently condemns Democrats'', rather than to a comment of an unsourced NYT statement. [[User:Order]] 2 august 9:42<br />
<br />
: Can we even confirm it's inadvertent? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:33, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The words you're quoting come from the body of the opinion piece. As per long-established grammatical rules of grammar, the author alerts the reader to the NYT quote he's writing about by using what are called 'Quotation Marks.' These are like two little 'ticks' placed high up on the line, before and after the material that is referenced from the other source - they look like this --> ". You put one before the material you're quoting from, and one after. That indicates that the author didn't write the material between the marks. They're very helpful, and you'll find careful use of them (and other useful punctuation like commas, semi-colons and brackets, for example), will greatly simplify the points you are trying to explain. Careful not to get confused though, there's a lot to learn in the world of punctuation and grammar. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 20:54, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Riiight. ''Which'' "opinion piece"? The link on the main page goes to AN opinion piece that is the source of the quote. The source of the quote, in turn, quoted excerpts of a NYT editorial (opinion piece). The way the main page is worded as well as the quoted material, makes it sound as if the quote came from the NYT. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A very good observation about the Quotation Marks [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]]. FYI over-reliance on mockery is [[Essay:Liberal_Style|Liberal Style]]. Anyway, this is exactly how I figured out that it wasn't a NYT quote. The first paragraph is a quote. The second is. Both unsourced BTW, but allegedly from the NYT. The third to seventh paragraph aren't, but are an opinion by Brewton. And the rest is a quote from the WSJ. The quote on the front page is from the 5th paragraph, and not from NYT. And that is exactly why the front page is misleading. [[User:Order]] 18:00<br />
<br />
I see that the front page still hasn't been fixed. Putting a misquotation on the front page can be done by mistake. Leaving it there uncorrected for more than a day is '''grossly negligent''' and reflects badly on every editor who as edited the front page in the last 24 hours. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 14:15 (AET)<br />
<br />
Uhm, yes - please fix this totally misleading quote on the front page. It reflects incredibly poorly indeed on Conservapedia that this ridiculously basic journalistic error has survived on the Front Page of this site for a few days. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 12:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It was changed. The original title was "New York Times Inadvertently Damns Democrats". The current title we have, and the link connected with are, are to a specific New Media Alliance article, and we don't feel it is necessary to change it on demand. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd advise you to check that again. Read the comments above - the NYT didn't say what you're claiming they said. The author of the blog did. BrianRobertson explained the concept above. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 13:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I did check it again, and the author of the opinion piece that is the source of the title on our page used it rather correctly in describing what the NYT has written, and we are using it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sigh. I guess I'll have to explain again. The text you are attributing to the NYT on the Main Page was <b>not</b> written by the NYT, but by the author of the piece you are linking to. Your title could read "Blogger considers NYT to have inadvertently condemned Democrats", for example. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 13:36, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, ''I'll'' have to explain once and for all: Thomas Merton is saying that the ''New York Times'' has inadvertently damned the Democrats. According to his analysis, the newspaper is complaining about an "ill" (i.e., [[factory farms]]s) which are the result of a [[farm subsidy]] policy championed by Democrats. Now do you understand? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:05, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You've said it yourself - "Thomas Merton is saying that the ''New York Times'' has inadvertently damned the Democrats". That's your headline right there, and you won't look so unprofessional any more. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 14:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What part of "we agree with him" don't you understand? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:34, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Did you click on the link [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] on the front page to the quoted article? If you did I wonder if you still agree with the statement that the "NYT said 'Lest we forget, this whole mess originated ...'"? [[User:Order]] 3 August 11:11 (AET)<br />
<br />
I've been a 'lurker' here for a few months now, as I'm professionally interested in the beliefs of extremists, and I've never felt much like diving in to the huge array of controversies before. But I have to confess, something about this one in particular has really floored me - the standard of editors at this supposedly 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' is so appalling, your level of intellectual achievement so low, your egos so over-inflated, that you cannot see that Order, U2, Brian, and Anne are all absolutely correct, and your Main Page headline is completely misleading. Quite, quite extraordinary, and a very good example of why 'write a book to learn, don't read a book' is no slogan for a quality education. You should be ashamed of yourselves. [[User:DrFrankMitchell|DrFrankMitchell]] 16:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*I once knew Dr. Frank Baxter, Dr. Do you know him? --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:59, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Dr." Frank Mitchell, how about first learning that "i before e" in "achievement", and then '''after''' you learn that you can lecture us on how we should be "ashamed of" ourselves? See [[Essay:Liberal Style|liberal style]], with the last pointed just added with you in mind. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:40, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, your error above ''points'' to the inadvisability of using a spell-checker as a crutch on the one hand and as a club ''in'' the other. Your spell-checker won't catch errors like the one you made above. While I know you're not a big fan of the passage, it may be that you begin to see the wisdom of "judge not lest you be judged," though in fact I rather doubt you can make the cognitive leap necessary. In truth though I don't make any judgments about your intelligence based souly on your imperfect mastery of the English language; We all make mistakes. Now that we've got those formalities out of the way, perhaps you care to educate us on why you think a site that purports to be reliable can allow an obvious smear like the one described above remain long after it has been pointed out, repeatedly and in tiresome detail while forgiving any errors I've made here through carelessness and failure to run this post through my own spell-checker. In other words, no further deflections or personal attacks please.[[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 19:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Compared to a spelling mistake on the front page, it reflects badly on Conservapedia to wrongly attribute a quote to a source that didn't say it. If you think that NYT wrote this sentence give proof. This is a challenge. <br />
<br />
You probably keep it on the front page as it is because you think that it makes a few Liberals angry, and it probably does, but the normal folks just click on the link and think to themselves: "This site calls itself trustworthy?" If there would exist anything like a mortal sin for an encyclopedia, wrong attribution of quotes would be one of it. Spelling mistakes, especially on talk pages, are at best venial sins in comparison. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order]] 3 August 10:50 (AET)<br />
<br />
::Order, if you read above you'll see that the defenders of this bit believe that, if parsed very carefully and with correct interpretation of their weasel words, the quote of CP's front page is not misleading. The issue is that if you read the quote without guile, it is misleading and dishonest. <br />
<br />
While I don't want to get into a taxonomy of spelling error and usage sins with you, I do agree that mistakes on the discussion pages should be overlooked. In fact, in the larger world of web etiquette (sic . . . hehe . . that doesn't look right) it is considered rude to fixate on these errors. The issue here, however, is that Aschlafly has adopted the habit of using these minor errors as a basis for dismissing the poster's points out of hand. i.e. to Aschlafly, if you misspell a word you are unintelligent and unworthy of a response. The irony, petty as it is, is that he commits errors as well and indeed made an error in usage (''pointed'' when he presumably meant ''point'') even as he was chiding a user for failing to apply the "i before e except after c" rule directly above. I've spent too long on this already but did not want to be misunderstood. [[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 09:45, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Wikia being for-profit ==<br />
<br />
I have to question why Wikia, which is a separate venture all together, being for-profit somehow means that Wikipedia is terrible. What are Wikipedia's users supposed to wise up for? That Wales needs money and isn't willing to sell out for corporate adverts on Wikipedia? The demon! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Jimbo has been selling his data mining from WP for years. So while not adverts, he has certainly be profiting from the data he sells. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 22:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
**Source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
*** You do realize that all of wikipedia is available for download so that anyone who cares to do the work themselves can datamine to thier heart's content [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download]? Which sort of poke big holes in the nefariousness of his data mining? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:30, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Wikipedia is simply using volunteers to build traffic to enrich the owners of Wikia. The less intelligent Wikipedia volunteers don't realize that yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
**Source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
**I'm not sure that I understand what's so horrible about this. Some people might contribute to Wikipedia, Conservapedia, Memory Alpha (there are oodles of these things now) for the pure pleasure of contributing to something collaborative. I contribute to both Conservapedia and Wikipedia and I honestly don't give a toot who makes money from it or why.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 10:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OK, one critic pretends Wikia owners aren't exploiting Wikipedia profit for gain, and another critic says he doesn't care if they do! Well, if the volunteers don't care, then why isn't there a frank and open discussion of how Wikipedia is being used to help the for-profit Wikia? After all, Porthos implies that wouldn't affect the volunteers. (Of course it would)<br />
<br />
The reality is that Wikipedia is designed to boost traffic. The gossip, the porn, the silly links, etc. Traffic, rather than learning, is the goal there. And why? Because more traffic for Wikipedia makes Wikia a more profitable endeavor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That is an interesting hypothesis but it fails in a number of respects: other wikis and a variety of other volunteer projects are also not given the nofollow tags. This isn't anything about Wikia, this is that the foundation is interested in promoting Wikis in the general case. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
: I'm not certain that Wikipedia ever stated that its main goal was learning or education. It certainly does strive to be a repository for "all knowledge" or some such overly ambitious enterprise, but I don't think it was established with the same goal that you had in mind when you set this place up.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:37, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Joshua, your statement is wrong. Wikipedia's "nofollow" policy does favor its for-profit Wikia. This has long been clearly and thoroughly explained in our [[Wikipedia]] entry, which I quote below. The citation is in our [[Wikipedia]] entry Godspeed. From [[Wikipedia]]:<br />
<br />
:::Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Again, you seem to be missing the point. There a variety of wikis that don't get the no-follow tags, not just Wikia. Wikia simply happens to be the one which you notice since Jimbo runs it. If you want, I can give a full list of the sites which don't get no-follow tags(it's rather long). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::: Expanding on my earlier comment, the full list of exceptions can be found [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map here]. As you can also see from the talk page of that article, the determination of what goes on the list has minimal input from Jimbo. In fact, I have some emails discussing this topic with Jimbo earlier in which he didn't even know where the list was or how to find it. As far as I can tell, the notion that this is being done by Jimbo is simply only asserted by an unreliable blog of someone who was unhappy that his personal website couldn't get traffic boosting from Wikipedia. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:15, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Joshua's additional comment does not change the fact that Wikipedia favors the for-profit Wikia, and this policy overruled the vote of the Wikipedia volunteers. At most Joshua's link shows that a few liberal sites are also favored by Wikipedia's policy. Please see my comments below for further discussion. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::: Ok, you seem to be missing a few points: 1) Wikipedia isn't the only part of the Wikimedia foundation. That's why the interlink list is on the meta-page. For technical reasons all the interwiki links need to be the same for all the projects, so it wasn't the choice of the English wikipedia. If the software is modified it might be possible to break it down by project, in which case the issue will become .en's business. And again, this isn't favoritism to for-profit sites, this an emphasis on wikis. Many of the wikis linked to are for profit. The claim, that Wikia is somehow singled out for Jimbo's benefit (which is the really relevant issue) is simply not true. I'm also puzzled by your claim that the list somehow shows yet more favoritism of "liberal sites" since I don't see much on the list that would be actively construed as liberal. To take a random example, I have trouble seeing the Battlestar Galactica wiki as a "liberal site". [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:43, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Gee, Joshua, do you also "have trouble seeing" how EcoReality and SwingWiki are liberal sites??? Notice how there isn't a single conservative site on the list???<br />
<br />
:::::::: By the way, I'm not the one who originally pointed out that a Wikia owner overrode the vote of the Wikipedia volunteers to enact a policy that favors the for-profit Wikia. Perhaps Wikipedia admins can continue to fool Wikipedia volunteers for a while, but not indefinitely. Wikipedia is not fooling anyone here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: Ok, first, I suggest you may want to reread my sentence. My comment was that I did not "see much on the list that would be actively construed as liberal" not that there were no liberal sites. You have picked two examples one which I'm puzzled by. I suggest you take a look at Swingwiki, I don't know what you have in mind but I suspect that you drew conclusions from the title and whatever you associate the word "swing" with. It is a Java development wiki. Second, note that there are also a variety of others such as a WikiChristian. Note that neither Dkosopedia or Conservapedia is currently included. You could of course if you want request Conservapedia be added. All you need to do is go to the talk page. So it seems to me that the claim of this list being somehow liberal holds about as much water as the claim that it somehow is designed to send traffic to Wikia. That is, less water than a leaky bucket after a few months in a desert. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Joshua, your comments go far off topic. The title of this section is about how Wikia is for-profit, and how the the Wikia owner(s) overruled the overwhelmingly majority vote of the volunteer Wikipedia editors, and instead installed preferences for the for-profit Wikia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: Andrew, the comment was in references to your statement that the list linked to showed that "it most Joshua's link shows that a few liberal sites are also favored by Wikipedia's policy" and your use of Swingwiki and Evowiki as examples. A response to that claim is no more off-topic than that claim, and the point that a large variety of different sites are in the interwiki map seems to have been not well refuted. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Joshua, the title of this thread is "Wikia being for-profit," and your comments have strayed way off topic. My comment was simply a criticism of how your cite to interwiki map did not support your argument. You then completely ignored the topic of this thread and created an entirely new discussion about the (lack of) balance in the interwiki map. That's off-topic. Either speak to the topic here or start a different discussion somewhere else. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I still can't quite understand this obsession with the nofollow tags dispute. Very few people at Wikipedia care much about it, and for good reason. Nevertheless, you seem to labor under the misconception that Wikipedia exists solely to boost traffic for Wikia, which is clearly not the case. By that logic every single external link from every single wikipedia page that goes to any .com page is exploiting Wikipedia for commercial gain. I, for one, see nothing wrong with Jimmy Wales realizing that when he gave Wikipedia to the non-profit Wikimedia foundation he gave away a billion dollars, and wanting to use a similar concept to make some money. It's called capitalism, and it's generally something conservatives support. Now, if he chose to start putting ads in Wikipedia (which could make him a few hundred million practially overnight) then I think you would see a revolt. But he wisely chose not to. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: Aschlafly, your repeated and wholly unfounded smears about strangers' intelligence aside, you seem to discount that some people contribute to Wikipedia simply because the project, a freely available compendium of all human knowledge, is worth doing and aren't particularly concerned about the wikia issue. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 15:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: If you were right, then Wikipedia leaders would be up-front and admit the current and future ways that Wikipedia will favor the for-profit Wikia, to the benefit of a few powerful people at Wikipedia. But obviously that disclosure is not happening. Joshua, whom I think is a Wikipedia admin, states above that "This isn't anything about Wikia". That has just been shown to be false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::: See my above comment (which you seem to have ignored), nofollow tags are not put on for a number of different wiki projects. Wikia is included in that set because it is a wiki, not because Jimbo runs it. As I said, if you want I can give you the full list. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: Your reply doesn't make sense (just in case you were trying to make sense) and obviously doesn't address the efforts of altruistic editors. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Even altruistic editors don't like being deceived and overruled for the financial benefit of a privileged few.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==AP Scores==<br />
<br />
Okay, those AP and SAT scores are pretty impressive. I just wanted to congratulate all the students on them! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:41, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:That average AP score is ''very'' impressive. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks much, Dan and Bohdan! Your encouragement to the students during the spring deserves credit too. I hope you can participate in one or more of the fall courses, which will just be similar to what we have been doing (e.g., posting and editing files, plus answering some students' questions in the protected namespaces to be created for the courses). In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, I'd be more than willing to help in that manner. My major is Secondary History Education, so it kind of fits with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:52, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That would be great, Dan! Actually, online education is becoming so big now, I would expect employers to like applicants who have some experience in it. In another 20 years, most education may be done online. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Many corporations and companies, including my own, actually offer employee incentives for online continuing education, including courses offered in degree programs, such as by Chapman College, etc. The future is arriving faster and faster! --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 02:35, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just a quick question, are the SAT/AP/CLEP scores from the actual tests or from the tests this site offers? If they are from actual tests, it certainly shows that there are some quality educators or very good students here. [[User:Sahim|Sahim]] 08:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The SAT/AP/CLEP scores are official, and are from the actual tests put out by [[ETS]]. I appreciate your compliments very much, but would add that I think the teaching approach taken here as more to do with this success than the teacher and the students themselves. The classes are open to all students, for example, and there is no pre-screening to select very good students as done in private school and in honors courses in public school. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Now I just learned something. Apparently [[ETS]] writes the SAT and AP exams, but not the [[CLEP]] exam. That helps explain why the the [[CLEP]] exam does not have as much [[liberal bias]] as the other two. I wonder who does develop the [[CLEP]] exam? I don't think the [[College Board]] develops it, though it does administer it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Just out of curiosity, in what ways are the SAT and AP exams politically biased? I've heard the claims of racial bias, but never a political or ideological one. From my experience with over 10 AP exams and several SAT/PSAT/NMSQT sessions, they are nothing more than comprehensive tests. Heck, I guess I could concede my AP Calc BC test was biased against me because it had a preference for annoying integrals of equations in polar form, but that's all I can see. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Newsbusters?==<br />
I know I should give up trying to get anything changed on the Main Page, but some of these "newsbusters" links are just stupid. It does no credit to Conservapedia to link itself to that group; you might as well post a link saying "look, a bunch of retarded children agree with us!" The piece on news anchors takes the cake. Katie Couric makes a quip about gas prices saying that she needs a loan to fill up her tank, and newsbusters comes up wiuth the scoop that (prepare for absolute shock) Couric actually ''doesn't'' need a bank loan to buy gas (next stop: Pulitzer)! I guess these geniuses have yet to realize that not everything even spoken is to be taken literally (ever hear of hyperbole? No? Didn't think so). Even their Brian Williams example, which has a slight basis in fact, is deeply flawed. Williams is critical of the money some CEOs receive. Pointing out that he makes as much as the average CEO is hypocritical only is he's critical of the ''average'' CEO pay, when it's the $100 million bonuses for running a company in the ground that people are riled up about. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:02, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Portly, since you enjoy the NewsBusters articles so much, here's some more:<br />
<br />
:*Hacker Proves How MSM is Fooled by al Qaeda Photochopped Images http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/08/05/hacker-proves-how-msm-fooled-al-qaeda-photochopped-images<br />
<br />
:*WSJ Decline Blamed on 'Vitriolic Right-Wing Attack Editorials' Scaring Advertisers http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/04/wsj-decline-blamed-vitriolic-right-wing-attack-editorials-scaring-adver<br />
<br />
:*CNN's Blitzer Asks Rep. Ellison About Bush/Hitler Comment http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/04/cnns-blitzer-asks-rep-ellison-about-bush-hitler-comment<br />
<br />
:*Olbermann Blames Iraq War Spending for Bridge Collapse http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/04/olbermann-blames-iraq-war-spending-bridge-collapse<br />
<br />
:*'Big Search': The Same Old Biased News Coverage for the Digital World? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/08/04/big-search-same-old-biased-news-coverage-digital-world<br />
<br />
:*NYT Deceives on Dem Vote Dodge http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/04/nyt-deceives-dem-vote-dodge<br />
<br />
:*Abnormally Cold Temperatures in Texas Threaten Cotton Crop http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/04/abnormally-cold-temperatures-texas-threaten-cotton-crop<br />
<br />
:*Unreported Poll: Congress Gets 3% Approval Rating For Handling Iraq War http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/04/unreported-poll-congress-gets-3-approval-rating-handling-iraq-war<br />
<br />
:*CNN's King Played Softball With Gore, But Pressed Cheney With Hard Questions http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/08/01/cnns-king-played-softball-gore-pressed-cheney-hard-questions<br />
<br />
:*ABC's Harris: British PM 'Potentially No More Poodle' to Bush http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/07/30/abcs-harris-british-pm-potentially-no-more-poodle-bush<br />
<br />
:*Margaret Carlson Regrets Lack of 'Will' to Raise Taxes as '$4,000 a Minute' Spent in Iraq http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/04/margaret-carlson-regrets-lack-will-raise-taxes-4-000-minute-spent-iraq<br />
<br />
:*WashPost Wrongly Claimed US Is Still Biggest Greenhouse Gas Emitter http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/08/05/washpost-wrongly-claimed-us-still-biggest-greenhouse-gas-emitter<br />
<br />
:*Saudi Book Suppression Via UK Libel Laws: Where's the Outrage? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/08/05/saudi-book-suppression-uk-libel-laws-wheres-outrage<br />
<br />
:Have a great conservative day! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:16, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, taking a quick look at some of those examples it seems they're somewhat better. Still doesn't explain why the most blatantly stupid thing newsbusters seems to have written is on the front page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:36, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ninth Curcit Court==<br />
Is there a link to this story?--[[User:Rube|Rube]] 15:35, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: This story is an exclusive for Conservapedia. We do run exclusive stories periodically. I'll see if I can find a link to the decision itself. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== NY Daily News Misleads About Bush Linking Iraq and 9/11 ==<br />
<br />
I found this quote from George W. Bush and was wondering how he ''isn't'' making a connection between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda/9-11<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."<br />
</blockquote> < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html ><br />
Any thoughts/opinions? {{unsigned|BillOhannity}}<br />
<br />
*''"As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said"''. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:06, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Funny Mark Twain quote ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this would be good for the daily historical quote, but I got a laugh out of it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
"People who don't read the newspapers are uninformed. People who do read the newspapers are misinformed." -- Mark Twain<br />
</blockquote><br />
--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:19, 8 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Excellent. Thanks. I've posted your funny (and true) quote on the front page. In Christ--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:59, 8 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Whoops! I was going from memory and had the wording wrong. In the interest of accuracy, here is the exact quote:<br />
<blockquote><br />
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."<br />
</blockquote><br />
Apologies.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:47, 8 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== undocumented immigrant murders three college students ==<br />
<br />
Remember those three college kids killed in Newark, with an additional student being listed in stable condition after suffering knife and gunshot wounds.<br />
<br />
The murderer was an undocumented immigrant from Peru, [http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/10/schoolyard.killings/index.html according to CNN] (see 9th paragraph).<br />
<br />
--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I was just watching this as well. So sad.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::It might be worth noting on the main page that he was Peruvian, not Mexican. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 14:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: That's fine, Hoji. Please fix it up how you think best at Template:Mainpageright. I don't have an ax to grind here, except to convey the truth about a profound tragedy. God help the victims and their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Fox says it too, in the first paragraph [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292717,00.html]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::In the midst of tragedy, let's not forget our American heritage. Constitutional law is founded on the presumtion of innocence until guilt is proven. In this case, we have victims who cannot identify the perpetrator, and three suspects. The Peruvian guy has been charged as a suspect; we don't know that he is "the murderer." Maybe in a Communist society we could make that assertion, but I implore everyone to remember the American-friendly policy of Conservapedia. Is he an illegal alien? Yes. Is he a murderer? Actually, we don't know that yet. --[[User:Fred]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/archive19&diff=267517Talk:Main Page/archive192007-08-14T23:51:15Z<p>Fred: /* undocumented immigrant murders three college students */</p>
<hr />
<div>== [[Democrat]] [[Al Gore]]'s son pleads guilty to possession... ==<br />
<br />
...of marijuana and "other drugs". Yet another example of what a liberal upbringing will do to a person.<br />
<br />
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/30/al-gores-son-pleads-guilty-to-drug-charges/<br />
<br />
:Ah--(ahem)--that's nice, but that is ''not'' what we mean when we say that we "will not lay off the [[Democrat]]s." Our criticisms of Democratic Party politicians have their bases in:<br />
#Public policy.<br />
#Different views of mankind and the world.<br />
#Demonstrable instances of hypocrisy.<br />
So far as I know, Albert A. Gore III never once said that drugs were a bad thing. (Nor did he kill anyone in the course of the felony to which he has now pleaded guilty.) So if he gets arrested for drugs, and arraigned, that's not news. That's simply lame gossip.<br />
<br />
As to the father, well, sure, a father bears some responsibility for a son's misbehavior. But that still doesn't make the son's misdemeanors--or even felonies--newsworthy.<br />
<br />
Now if Albert A. Gore ''Junior'' had been taking drugs, and had been doing that ''while he was holding public office'', that might have been newsworthy.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: No, we will not be putting that item on the Front Page.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Wrong headline media news Hillary ==<br />
<br />
The headline '''Hillary Clinton in the News 20 Times More Than GOP Candidates''' is wrong. If you follow the link you will find a Pew research report [http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/344.pdf] giving figures for the question ''Can you tell me the name of the candidate you’ve heard the MOST about in the news lately?''. This doesn't mean that Hilary was in the news 20 times more often, it just means that she was remembered 20 times more often. One reason could be that she is in the news more often, but there could be various other reasons why people name her first. The high figures for Obama indicate that it could be due to the Hillary vs Obama theme, which might be more captivating than any news about Republican candidates. But as I said, the figures of the Pew Research center don't tell. The headline should read '''People remember Hillary 20 times better'''. Also, I wonder why the front page doesn't cite the Pew numbers directly. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 20:55<br />
<br />
: Being in the news more often doesn't mean you're a better candidate, don't forget. Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy is most particularly newsworthy because she's not only a woman running for president, but the wife of a former president. She's also competing with a black presidential candidate. To a lot of people, that's more interesting than anything most of the other candidates have to say right now. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Did I say that she is a better candidate? Where? I said that people remember her better. And indeed it could have been because she is a woman, because people dislike her, because people like her, or because her campaign staff is better in getting the message across, or because people find the Obama-Hillary showdown more interesting than whether Thompson will run or not, or for whatever other reason. The study doesn't tell. What Is said is that the headline is wrong, and is still wrong as of today, while it would be easy to fix. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:44<br />
<br />
:Order, It's just your [[liberal]] opinion that the headline is wrong... and it stays. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:49, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, another example of gross misrepresentation on the front page. "Newsbusters" has proven itself to be a joke. Still not sure how reporting on the Dow more than the GDP is "liberal" bias. Whatever. Clearly Conservapedia isn't interested in the facts. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 21:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Where did I voice an opinion, especially where did I voice a liberal opinion? Calling someone a liberal is a poor substitute for an argument, especially when it is not a political argument. Can you tell me how the question on the questionnaire, relates to the headline on the frontpage? And can you tell me how much news on the frontpage helps Conservapedia, if a click on the source reveals that the editor who put it there didn't read the source carefully, or even made a mistake interpreting it. And I am not talking about the political interpretation, but about actually reading the captions. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:55<br />
<br />
Order, let's discuss your last entry:<br />
**'''Where did I voice an opinion?''' How about "''the headline is wrong''". That's YOUR opinion. <br />
:::Actually it is true, not an opinion. Read on.<br />
**'''Where did I voice a liberal opinion?''' How about "''The high figures for Obama indicate that it could be due to the Hillary vs Obama theme, which might be more captivating than any news about Republican candidates''". Sounds like a liberal opinion to me. <br />
:::No, it isn't. You could ask people what is more interesting. Are they more curious about who will be the democratic contender, Hillary or Obama, or are they curious about whether Thompson decides to run or not. If the former is found more interesting, it could be the explanation that they remember Hillary and Obama better than Thompson. It just like people remember Paris Hilton better, than say Duncan Hunter; not because she is nicer, but because her story is more interesting. There is nothing liberal about this statement, its a hypothesis about why Obama and Hillary are remembered much more often. Your hypothesis is that it is because MSN mentions Hillary 20 times more often, but that is also just a hypothesis, and none of them is supported by the data. However the headline wrongly suggest that the data supports the second hypothesis.[[User:Order]] 1 August, 13:34<br />
<br />
**Your suggested headline "''People remember Hillary 20 times better''", is something a liberal would love to see - NOT a conservative. I have changed it to the new [[NewsBusters]] headline "More People See Hillary in the News Than Any GOP Presidential Candidate".<br />
:::Sorry, but the data suggest that people do remember her 21 times better. Or if you want 21 times more people remember to have seen Hillary than say Thompson. Nothing liberal about that either. Its in the data. Don't quote the data if you don't like it. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 13:34<br />
:The [[MSM]] uses [[liberal bias]] to dominate the news favoring Democratic candidates, and naturally, people will hear about Hillary more often than Mitt. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 22:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::This might very well be true. However the data doesn't say so. But the headline wrongly suggest it does. Can you point to a page, and preferably a table, with that information? I challenge you. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 13:34<br />
<br />
::Naturally. It just stands to reason.[[User:SumsUp|SumsUp]] 22:52, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Well, let's not forget that, campaigning aside, Hillary gets in the news frequently for being a high-profile Senator, while Mitt...um...what exactly is Mitt's job again? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Portly, your [[Essay:Liberal Style|liberal style]] is showing...<br />
:::*over-reliance on mockery<br />
::Didnt Crocoite get the last word?[[User:SumsUp|SumsUp]] 23:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No, you did. Wait!? Now me. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]<br />
:::*insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate<br />
::: --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
It seems like the headline has been fixed. thanks [[User:Order]] 2 August 2:11<br />
<br />
==Border Fence = Animal Killer!==<br />
<br />
I thought you guys might be interested in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6924475.stm this]. Illegal Immigrants versus the environment. <br />
[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 14:05, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This article proves there are liberals in Mexico too. Cactus fences? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Im sorry, but animals are tasty...perhaps animals caught up by the fence could be put to use somehow.[[User:SumsUp|SumsUp]] 23:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Wikia - "for-profit company" ==<br />
<br />
From the ''Building a Wiki World'' article is this gem:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Late in the day, we find Wales at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He's about to give a lecture to a group of eager graduate students when one of the school's instructors bounds up to shake his hand. "I'll give you a brief introduction before you go on," he says, waving a piece of paper. "Just a bit of biographical information that I downloaded from Wikipedia." <br />
<br />
A look of mild alarm crosses Wales' face. "You'd better let me have a look at that first," he says. Sure enough, <u>Wales' own Wikipedia entry contains an error, misstating his date of birth</u>. The error, which stems from a mistake on Wales' birth certificate, is something of an <u>inside joke among hard-core Wikipedians, who '''keep deliberately reintroducing it''' despite Wales' best efforts to correct the record</u>.</blockquote> --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== '''Which of these is a crime in America?''' ==<br />
<br />
A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine. <br><br />
B) [[Flag desecration in the United States of America|Burning the American flag]]. <br><br />
C) Putting a [[Koran]] in a toilet. <br><br />
[[Michelle Malkin]] gives the answer [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/30/which-of-these-is-a-crime-in-america/ here] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:28, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Scary! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:52, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Minor correction needed for the front page==<br />
The line actually should read "Wiki''media'' search engine to let users influence web results rankings". Wiki''pedia'' is an encyclopedia, not a search engine; the two are connected, but by no means the same thing. Also this consistent attack of Wikia as a "for-profit" company smacks of liberalism. Since when do conservatives sneer at people trying to make money through entrepreneurship? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Actually I was wrong, it seems Wikia is not part of Wikimedia. I guess I sort of knew that. The headline should say "''Wikia'' search engine to let users influence web results rankings". [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lindsay McCreith Story Regarding Healthcare (and Michael Moore) ==<br />
<br />
The sentence "He'd be dead now if he stayed within his Canadian health care system" is unfounded, and isn't mentioned in the cited article at all. In fact, the article states that he has low-grade astrocytoma, which is slow growing. Therefore I can only conclude that the sentence is what one might call a false and deceiving statement at worst, and a "speculative statement" at best.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, as a Canadian who works in the health care industry, I see the long wait times for MRI and surgeries, and it isn't correct for Moore to say (in an interview) that Canadians got the right idea about health care. However, using exaggeration and (let's face it) false statement is not the way to bring the message across.<br />
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry, but Moore didn't praise Canada's health care system by any means in ''Sicko''. Admittedly, he could've and probably should've done more to describe some of the negative aspects to the system, but in no way did he praise it or suggest that we should convert our system over to the Canadian one. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 13:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Wow, you'd better tell Peter Howell of The Toronto Star that he also misunderstood Moore's movie! He wrote about the movie, "Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo."[http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/215801]<br />
<br />
: After you complain to Howell, then let us know if we should still change our reference. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Isn't this the site that [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|doesn't take journalists' opinions as fact]]? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:25, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I wrote Mr. Howell a short letter with my grievances. I doubt I'll get a response. But seriously - such random sniping of prominent left-wingers hurts this site's reputation. What they say half the time rebuts itself; why intervene? I actually went to see sicko, and I urge everyone here to as well - not because I think you'll be persuaded to endorse socialized medicine, but simply so you can make your own critical analysis of the film without relying on others. Enough with the group think that's so rampant among us conservatives! We don't have to regurgitate every talking point we hear on Fox News... we're allowed to come to our own opinions about things. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It's been a day, and the speculative statement "He'd be dead now if he stayed within his Canadian health care system" is still up there. Does the Main Page not follow the same standards as the articles on Conservapedia? If not, it should, at the very least, follow "facts" - but I guess not, since most article links include a quip about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket (which is an opinion, not fact). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Folks, someone here tried to pretend that Sicko doesn't praise the Canadian system, and perhaps he thought he could fool us with that claim. But this is how to handle such claims: find a more credible liberal who tells the truth and thereby disproves it, which I did. That isn't regurgitating Fox News. I don't even think Fox News carried this story!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Man, how I regret bringing ΨtrykeЯ's comments together with my own.<br />
:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The problem with your methodology, Andy, is that you can arbitrarily choose someone who shares your viewpoint and, upon finding that claim corroborated, declare it the ''de facto'' truth. Reality doesn't work like that, and reality is simple: Moore didn't praise or glorify the Canadian healthcare system. And no liberal that I'm aware is proposing we adopt it, except in the most generalized terms as "universal healthcare." Everyone agrees that it's a system mired by bureaucracy and loopholes and not suitable for our country.<br />
<br />
:''Opinions'' don't trump '''facts.''' I'd pull up a quote from Moore saying that he wasn't trying to glorify the Canadian health care system, but then he'd just be practicing [[liberal]] [[deceit]], right? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:46, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Now Obama, the anti-war candidate, wants to invade another country ==<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that after this announcement the liberals are going to drop him like a bad habit.<br />
<br />
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1<br />
<br />
--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 10:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, I hate to say it, but he's right. If Pakistan is sheltering terrorists, then we need to go and kill those terrorists. Osama is hiding there somewhere. Of course, troops aren't the only option. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Search Wikia Quote. ==<br />
<br />
Jimmy Wales said ""When I opened Wikipedia with only three articles in it, it was a pretty bad encyclopedia".<br />
<br />
That's the quotation from the front page - punctuation error included. This has nothing to do with the article, and is using the quote out of context. Wales was talking about the beginnings of Wikipedia, and is trying to compare it to his new startup project Search Wikia, which he says won't be very good at the beginning. The second line was omitted on the Main Page here. Twisting a quotation out of context isn't a proper practice here on Conservapedia, is it? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:17, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== How long before the Wikipedia volunteers wise up and revolt? ==<br />
<br />
I say three months, tops, before that place goes down in flames.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:A little optimistic there, eh?<br />
:I'm not very familiar with Wikia, but I thought most Wikipedia volunteers don't participate in the company's projects? And those of them who do get paid. I don't see why there would be a revolution. After all, there was some outrage about Wales overturning the vote on no-follow tags, but no "mass strike" or "resignations", nor any big "class action". I still edit there despite of that (unless I hear more about Wale's evil-doings). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:02, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The brain drain has already been occurring at Wikipedia. Smart people don't like to volunteer their efforts only to be used and manipulated by a for-profit project benefiting others. If you don't believe me, look and see how few people volunteer at Microsoft or Google.<br />
<br />
:: I agree that dumber people won't catch on for a while, and they're likely to continue toiling at Wikipedia. But they'll eventually wake up too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ouch, was that a thinly-veiled attack on my intelligence? =P<br />
:::I don't have problem of his purported manipulations... I volunteer in a hospital (well, in Canada it's non-profit, but I'm sure there isn't a lack of volunteers in US hospitals), and I don't mind my efforts even if my hospital is for profit. The only source of frustration for me is battling vandalism - or worse, people who believe in false facts - but I am still optimistic about the future of Wikipedia. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I didn't intend to attack your intelligence. :-) I didn't even know if you are a Wikipedia volunteer. But, to your point, how often do you volunteer at a for-profit hospital or corporation? Not too much, I bet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Yeah I usually only volunteer once a week at my hospital. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:45, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Actually a lot of people would probably like to work as intern at Microsoft or Google, even for free. But thats another issue, since both were always for-profit companies with excellent R&D departments. But you are quite right that the open source and free for all community can be fairly unforgiving. [[User:Order]] 2 augus 2:28 (AET)<br />
<br />
: I doubt that "a lot of people" would like to work at Microsoft or Google for free. If so, it is likely to be inversely proportional to intelligence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] do you mean [[Wikipedia]] the free liberally biased encyclopedia or the equally evil, for-profit company [[Wikia]], which aims to make money from user-generated content? [[User:EdDeTour|EdDeTour]] 12:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry and but did you say at some point that Conservapedia has a lot of respect for scholars. It happens to be the case that some of the smartest and best educated computer scientists and software engineers work at Microsoft and Google, and a lots of very smart people would love to work with them. Even for free. You might not like their products, but their labs are world class. [[User:Order]] 2:45 (AET)<br />
<br />
:Working as an intern at Google or Microsoft isn't exactly "for free". You build connections and stack your resume, so even though there's no immediate monetary return, there is an increase in career potential. (This is also one of the reasons I volunteer at a hospital.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:47, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Indeed, and thats exactly why a lot of people would love to do it. [[User:Order]]<br />
<br />
I have to say I find it very strange the fuss that this site makes over the no-follow links decision at Wikipedia. There was a vote 2 years ago. About 150 people participated (out of many thousands of eligible accounts). It didn't really affect Wikipedia as much as it did other search engines, so it wasn't a huge issue. Does anyone really expect a big revolt about it? I was an active contributor at the time, and I didn't even know about the vote, and wouldn't have cared even if I did. It's a pretty minor issue. Why the big fuss here? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:07, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: how exactly do you know that the "brain drain" is already occuring at Wikipedia? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 14:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Deletions of discussions. ==<br />
<br />
Today is the first time I heard that Conservapedia reported a user to the FBI. Did something funny happen, because the entire discussion gets deleted. I could understand that the sysops don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation, but I can't understand why a fairly benign discussion gets deleted twice. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=257542][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=257630]<br />
Did anything that was said in this discussion in violation with Conservapedia policy? [[User:Order]] 2 August 2:22(AET)<br />
<br />
:Order, vandalism is obviously wrong and against the law, and flagrant vandalism has been reported to the FBI. Obviously the investigation is not a topic for discussion on this main talk page or anywhere else in this encyclopedia project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This explain the bit. Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Order]] 2 August 2:38(AET)<br />
<br />
== Today in History ==<br />
<br />
It's been blank for the last couple of days. What happened?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 13:03, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Apparently, nothing. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:15, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Maybe you could make some suggestions for it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:55, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Question about the Murdoch/WSJ comment ==<br />
<br />
I am confused by the comment "The newspaper industry is collapsing before our eyes." Was this intended to mean that Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ is also sign of the industry collapse? Or is it just a comment about the state of things in general? Thanks to whoever can clear this up for me.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 18:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:To latch on to Conservateur's enquiry: how can the owner of the most often cited news source on this site ([[Fox News]]) buying a conservative newspaper be bad for conservatives? Or for the newspaper industry? Wouldn't that make it more appealing to conservatives who rail against [[liberal bias]] in the main stream media? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Misleading front page news NYT ==<br />
<br />
The quote belonging to the head line '''New York Times inadvertently condemns Democrats''' wrongly suggests that it is a NYT quote. However, it is a quote by Thomas E. Brewton. NYT did not write these words, and suggesting otherwise is misleading. The frontpage should mention Brenton. Better would even if the front page would link directly to the NYT article that ''inadvertently condemns Democrats'', rather than to a comment of an unsourced NYT statement. [[User:Order]] 2 august 9:42<br />
<br />
: Can we even confirm it's inadvertent? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:33, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The words you're quoting come from the body of the opinion piece. As per long-established grammatical rules of grammar, the author alerts the reader to the NYT quote he's writing about by using what are called 'Quotation Marks.' These are like two little 'ticks' placed high up on the line, before and after the material that is referenced from the other source - they look like this --> ". You put one before the material you're quoting from, and one after. That indicates that the author didn't write the material between the marks. They're very helpful, and you'll find careful use of them (and other useful punctuation like commas, semi-colons and brackets, for example), will greatly simplify the points you are trying to explain. Careful not to get confused though, there's a lot to learn in the world of punctuation and grammar. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 20:54, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Riiight. ''Which'' "opinion piece"? The link on the main page goes to AN opinion piece that is the source of the quote. The source of the quote, in turn, quoted excerpts of a NYT editorial (opinion piece). The way the main page is worded as well as the quoted material, makes it sound as if the quote came from the NYT. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A very good observation about the Quotation Marks [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]]. FYI over-reliance on mockery is [[Essay:Liberal_Style|Liberal Style]]. Anyway, this is exactly how I figured out that it wasn't a NYT quote. The first paragraph is a quote. The second is. Both unsourced BTW, but allegedly from the NYT. The third to seventh paragraph aren't, but are an opinion by Brewton. And the rest is a quote from the WSJ. The quote on the front page is from the 5th paragraph, and not from NYT. And that is exactly why the front page is misleading. [[User:Order]] 18:00<br />
<br />
I see that the front page still hasn't been fixed. Putting a misquotation on the front page can be done by mistake. Leaving it there uncorrected for more than a day is '''grossly negligent''' and reflects badly on every editor who as edited the front page in the last 24 hours. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 14:15 (AET)<br />
<br />
Uhm, yes - please fix this totally misleading quote on the front page. It reflects incredibly poorly indeed on Conservapedia that this ridiculously basic journalistic error has survived on the Front Page of this site for a few days. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 12:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It was changed. The original title was "New York Times Inadvertently Damns Democrats". The current title we have, and the link connected with are, are to a specific New Media Alliance article, and we don't feel it is necessary to change it on demand. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd advise you to check that again. Read the comments above - the NYT didn't say what you're claiming they said. The author of the blog did. BrianRobertson explained the concept above. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 13:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I did check it again, and the author of the opinion piece that is the source of the title on our page used it rather correctly in describing what the NYT has written, and we are using it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sigh. I guess I'll have to explain again. The text you are attributing to the NYT on the Main Page was <b>not</b> written by the NYT, but by the author of the piece you are linking to. Your title could read "Blogger considers NYT to have inadvertently condemned Democrats", for example. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 13:36, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, ''I'll'' have to explain once and for all: Thomas Merton is saying that the ''New York Times'' has inadvertently damned the Democrats. According to his analysis, the newspaper is complaining about an "ill" (i.e., [[factory farms]]s) which are the result of a [[farm subsidy]] policy championed by Democrats. Now do you understand? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:05, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You've said it yourself - "Thomas Merton is saying that the ''New York Times'' has inadvertently damned the Democrats". That's your headline right there, and you won't look so unprofessional any more. [[User:AnneUulmehlmehay|AnneUulmehlmehay]] 14:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What part of "we agree with him" don't you understand? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:34, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Did you click on the link [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] on the front page to the quoted article? If you did I wonder if you still agree with the statement that the "NYT said 'Lest we forget, this whole mess originated ...'"? [[User:Order]] 3 August 11:11 (AET)<br />
<br />
I've been a 'lurker' here for a few months now, as I'm professionally interested in the beliefs of extremists, and I've never felt much like diving in to the huge array of controversies before. But I have to confess, something about this one in particular has really floored me - the standard of editors at this supposedly 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' is so appalling, your level of intellectual achievement so low, your egos so over-inflated, that you cannot see that Order, U2, Brian, and Anne are all absolutely correct, and your Main Page headline is completely misleading. Quite, quite extraordinary, and a very good example of why 'write a book to learn, don't read a book' is no slogan for a quality education. You should be ashamed of yourselves. [[User:DrFrankMitchell|DrFrankMitchell]] 16:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*I once knew Dr. Frank Baxter, Dr. Do you know him? --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:59, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Dr." Frank Mitchell, how about first learning that "i before e" in "achievement", and then '''after''' you learn that you can lecture us on how we should be "ashamed of" ourselves? See [[Essay:Liberal Style|liberal style]], with the last pointed just added with you in mind. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:40, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, your error above ''points'' to the inadvisability of using a spell-checker as a crutch on the one hand and as a club ''in'' the other. Your spell-checker won't catch errors like the one you made above. While I know you're not a big fan of the passage, it may be that you begin to see the wisdom of "judge not lest you be judged," though in fact I rather doubt you can make the cognitive leap necessary. In truth though I don't make any judgments about your intelligence based souly on your imperfect mastery of the English language; We all make mistakes. Now that we've got those formalities out of the way, perhaps you care to educate us on why you think a site that purports to be reliable can allow an obvious smear like the one described above remain long after it has been pointed out, repeatedly and in tiresome detail while forgiving any errors I've made here through carelessness and failure to run this post through my own spell-checker. In other words, no further deflections or personal attacks please.[[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 19:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Compared to a spelling mistake on the front page, it reflects badly on Conservapedia to wrongly attribute a quote to a source that didn't say it. If you think that NYT wrote this sentence give proof. This is a challenge. <br />
<br />
You probably keep it on the front page as it is because you think that it makes a few Liberals angry, and it probably does, but the normal folks just click on the link and think to themselves: "This site calls itself trustworthy?" If there would exist anything like a mortal sin for an encyclopedia, wrong attribution of quotes would be one of it. Spelling mistakes, especially on talk pages, are at best venial sins in comparison. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order]] 3 August 10:50 (AET)<br />
<br />
::Order, if you read above you'll see that the defenders of this bit believe that, if parsed very carefully and with correct interpretation of their weasel words, the quote of CP's front page is not misleading. The issue is that if you read the quote without guile, it is misleading and dishonest. <br />
<br />
While I don't want to get into a taxonomy of spelling error and usage sins with you, I do agree that mistakes on the discussion pages should be overlooked. In fact, in the larger world of web etiquette (sic . . . hehe . . that doesn't look right) it is considered rude to fixate on these errors. The issue here, however, is that Aschlafly has adopted the habit of using these minor errors as a basis for dismissing the poster's points out of hand. i.e. to Aschlafly, if you misspell a word you are unintelligent and unworthy of a response. The irony, petty as it is, is that he commits errors as well and indeed made an error in usage (''pointed'' when he presumably meant ''point'') even as he was chiding a user for failing to apply the "i before e except after c" rule directly above. I've spent too long on this already but did not want to be misunderstood. [[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 09:45, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Wikia being for-profit ==<br />
<br />
I have to question why Wikia, which is a separate venture all together, being for-profit somehow means that Wikipedia is terrible. What are Wikipedia's users supposed to wise up for? That Wales needs money and isn't willing to sell out for corporate adverts on Wikipedia? The demon! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Jimbo has been selling his data mining from WP for years. So while not adverts, he has certainly be profiting from the data he sells. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 22:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
**Source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
*** You do realize that all of wikipedia is available for download so that anyone who cares to do the work themselves can datamine to thier heart's content [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download]? Which sort of poke big holes in the nefariousness of his data mining? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:30, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Wikipedia is simply using volunteers to build traffic to enrich the owners of Wikia. The less intelligent Wikipedia volunteers don't realize that yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
**Source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
**I'm not sure that I understand what's so horrible about this. Some people might contribute to Wikipedia, Conservapedia, Memory Alpha (there are oodles of these things now) for the pure pleasure of contributing to something collaborative. I contribute to both Conservapedia and Wikipedia and I honestly don't give a toot who makes money from it or why.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 10:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OK, one critic pretends Wikia owners aren't exploiting Wikipedia profit for gain, and another critic says he doesn't care if they do! Well, if the volunteers don't care, then why isn't there a frank and open discussion of how Wikipedia is being used to help the for-profit Wikia? After all, Porthos implies that wouldn't affect the volunteers. (Of course it would)<br />
<br />
The reality is that Wikipedia is designed to boost traffic. The gossip, the porn, the silly links, etc. Traffic, rather than learning, is the goal there. And why? Because more traffic for Wikipedia makes Wikia a more profitable endeavor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That is an interesting hypothesis but it fails in a number of respects: other wikis and a variety of other volunteer projects are also not given the nofollow tags. This isn't anything about Wikia, this is that the foundation is interested in promoting Wikis in the general case. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
: I'm not certain that Wikipedia ever stated that its main goal was learning or education. It certainly does strive to be a repository for "all knowledge" or some such overly ambitious enterprise, but I don't think it was established with the same goal that you had in mind when you set this place up.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:37, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Joshua, your statement is wrong. Wikipedia's "nofollow" policy does favor its for-profit Wikia. This has long been clearly and thoroughly explained in our [[Wikipedia]] entry, which I quote below. The citation is in our [[Wikipedia]] entry Godspeed. From [[Wikipedia]]:<br />
<br />
:::Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Again, you seem to be missing the point. There a variety of wikis that don't get the no-follow tags, not just Wikia. Wikia simply happens to be the one which you notice since Jimbo runs it. If you want, I can give a full list of the sites which don't get no-follow tags(it's rather long). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::: Expanding on my earlier comment, the full list of exceptions can be found [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map here]. As you can also see from the talk page of that article, the determination of what goes on the list has minimal input from Jimbo. In fact, I have some emails discussing this topic with Jimbo earlier in which he didn't even know where the list was or how to find it. As far as I can tell, the notion that this is being done by Jimbo is simply only asserted by an unreliable blog of someone who was unhappy that his personal website couldn't get traffic boosting from Wikipedia. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:15, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Joshua's additional comment does not change the fact that Wikipedia favors the for-profit Wikia, and this policy overruled the vote of the Wikipedia volunteers. At most Joshua's link shows that a few liberal sites are also favored by Wikipedia's policy. Please see my comments below for further discussion. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::: Ok, you seem to be missing a few points: 1) Wikipedia isn't the only part of the Wikimedia foundation. That's why the interlink list is on the meta-page. For technical reasons all the interwiki links need to be the same for all the projects, so it wasn't the choice of the English wikipedia. If the software is modified it might be possible to break it down by project, in which case the issue will become .en's business. And again, this isn't favoritism to for-profit sites, this an emphasis on wikis. Many of the wikis linked to are for profit. The claim, that Wikia is somehow singled out for Jimbo's benefit (which is the really relevant issue) is simply not true. I'm also puzzled by your claim that the list somehow shows yet more favoritism of "liberal sites" since I don't see much on the list that would be actively construed as liberal. To take a random example, I have trouble seeing the Battlestar Galactica wiki as a "liberal site". [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:43, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Gee, Joshua, do you also "have trouble seeing" how EcoReality and SwingWiki are liberal sites??? Notice how there isn't a single conservative site on the list???<br />
<br />
:::::::: By the way, I'm not the one who originally pointed out that a Wikia owner overrode the vote of the Wikipedia volunteers to enact a policy that favors the for-profit Wikia. Perhaps Wikipedia admins can continue to fool Wikipedia volunteers for a while, but not indefinitely. Wikipedia is not fooling anyone here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: Ok, first, I suggest you may want to reread my sentence. My comment was that I did not "see much on the list that would be actively construed as liberal" not that there were no liberal sites. You have picked two examples one which I'm puzzled by. I suggest you take a look at Swingwiki, I don't know what you have in mind but I suspect that you drew conclusions from the title and whatever you associate the word "swing" with. It is a Java development wiki. Second, note that there are also a variety of others such as a WikiChristian. Note that neither Dkosopedia or Conservapedia is currently included. You could of course if you want request Conservapedia be added. All you need to do is go to the talk page. So it seems to me that the claim of this list being somehow liberal holds about as much water as the claim that it somehow is designed to send traffic to Wikia. That is, less water than a leaky bucket after a few months in a desert. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: Joshua, your comments go far off topic. The title of this section is about how Wikia is for-profit, and how the the Wikia owner(s) overruled the overwhelmingly majority vote of the volunteer Wikipedia editors, and instead installed preferences for the for-profit Wikia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 4 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: Andrew, the comment was in references to your statement that the list linked to showed that "it most Joshua's link shows that a few liberal sites are also favored by Wikipedia's policy" and your use of Swingwiki and Evowiki as examples. A response to that claim is no more off-topic than that claim, and the point that a large variety of different sites are in the interwiki map seems to have been not well refuted. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Joshua, the title of this thread is "Wikia being for-profit," and your comments have strayed way off topic. My comment was simply a criticism of how your cite to interwiki map did not support your argument. You then completely ignored the topic of this thread and created an entirely new discussion about the (lack of) balance in the interwiki map. That's off-topic. Either speak to the topic here or start a different discussion somewhere else. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I still can't quite understand this obsession with the nofollow tags dispute. Very few people at Wikipedia care much about it, and for good reason. Nevertheless, you seem to labor under the misconception that Wikipedia exists solely to boost traffic for Wikia, which is clearly not the case. By that logic every single external link from every single wikipedia page that goes to any .com page is exploiting Wikipedia for commercial gain. I, for one, see nothing wrong with Jimmy Wales realizing that when he gave Wikipedia to the non-profit Wikimedia foundation he gave away a billion dollars, and wanting to use a similar concept to make some money. It's called capitalism, and it's generally something conservatives support. Now, if he chose to start putting ads in Wikipedia (which could make him a few hundred million practially overnight) then I think you would see a revolt. But he wisely chose not to. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: Aschlafly, your repeated and wholly unfounded smears about strangers' intelligence aside, you seem to discount that some people contribute to Wikipedia simply because the project, a freely available compendium of all human knowledge, is worth doing and aren't particularly concerned about the wikia issue. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 15:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: If you were right, then Wikipedia leaders would be up-front and admit the current and future ways that Wikipedia will favor the for-profit Wikia, to the benefit of a few powerful people at Wikipedia. But obviously that disclosure is not happening. Joshua, whom I think is a Wikipedia admin, states above that "This isn't anything about Wikia". That has just been shown to be false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::: See my above comment (which you seem to have ignored), nofollow tags are not put on for a number of different wiki projects. Wikia is included in that set because it is a wiki, not because Jimbo runs it. As I said, if you want I can give you the full list. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: Your reply doesn't make sense (just in case you were trying to make sense) and obviously doesn't address the efforts of altruistic editors. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Even altruistic editors don't like being deceived and overruled for the financial benefit of a privileged few.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==AP Scores==<br />
<br />
Okay, those AP and SAT scores are pretty impressive. I just wanted to congratulate all the students on them! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:41, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:That average AP score is ''very'' impressive. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks much, Dan and Bohdan! Your encouragement to the students during the spring deserves credit too. I hope you can participate in one or more of the fall courses, which will just be similar to what we have been doing (e.g., posting and editing files, plus answering some students' questions in the protected namespaces to be created for the courses). In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sure, I'd be more than willing to help in that manner. My major is Secondary History Education, so it kind of fits with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:52, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That would be great, Dan! Actually, online education is becoming so big now, I would expect employers to like applicants who have some experience in it. In another 20 years, most education may be done online. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Many corporations and companies, including my own, actually offer employee incentives for online continuing education, including courses offered in degree programs, such as by Chapman College, etc. The future is arriving faster and faster! --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 02:35, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just a quick question, are the SAT/AP/CLEP scores from the actual tests or from the tests this site offers? If they are from actual tests, it certainly shows that there are some quality educators or very good students here. [[User:Sahim|Sahim]] 08:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The SAT/AP/CLEP scores are official, and are from the actual tests put out by [[ETS]]. I appreciate your compliments very much, but would add that I think the teaching approach taken here as more to do with this success than the teacher and the students themselves. The classes are open to all students, for example, and there is no pre-screening to select very good students as done in private school and in honors courses in public school. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Now I just learned something. Apparently [[ETS]] writes the SAT and AP exams, but not the [[CLEP]] exam. That helps explain why the the [[CLEP]] exam does not have as much [[liberal bias]] as the other two. I wonder who does develop the [[CLEP]] exam? I don't think the [[College Board]] develops it, though it does administer it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Just out of curiosity, in what ways are the SAT and AP exams politically biased? I've heard the claims of racial bias, but never a political or ideological one. From my experience with over 10 AP exams and several SAT/PSAT/NMSQT sessions, they are nothing more than comprehensive tests. Heck, I guess I could concede my AP Calc BC test was biased against me because it had a preference for annoying integrals of equations in polar form, but that's all I can see. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Newsbusters?==<br />
I know I should give up trying to get anything changed on the Main Page, but some of these "newsbusters" links are just stupid. It does no credit to Conservapedia to link itself to that group; you might as well post a link saying "look, a bunch of retarded children agree with us!" The piece on news anchors takes the cake. Katie Couric makes a quip about gas prices saying that she needs a loan to fill up her tank, and newsbusters comes up wiuth the scoop that (prepare for absolute shock) Couric actually ''doesn't'' need a bank loan to buy gas (next stop: Pulitzer)! I guess these geniuses have yet to realize that not everything even spoken is to be taken literally (ever hear of hyperbole? No? Didn't think so). Even their Brian Williams example, which has a slight basis in fact, is deeply flawed. Williams is critical of the money some CEOs receive. Pointing out that he makes as much as the average CEO is hypocritical only is he's critical of the ''average'' CEO pay, when it's the $100 million bonuses for running a company in the ground that people are riled up about. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:02, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Portly, since you enjoy the NewsBusters articles so much, here's some more:<br />
<br />
:*Hacker Proves How MSM is Fooled by al Qaeda Photochopped Images http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/08/05/hacker-proves-how-msm-fooled-al-qaeda-photochopped-images<br />
<br />
:*WSJ Decline Blamed on 'Vitriolic Right-Wing Attack Editorials' Scaring Advertisers http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/04/wsj-decline-blamed-vitriolic-right-wing-attack-editorials-scaring-adver<br />
<br />
:*CNN's Blitzer Asks Rep. Ellison About Bush/Hitler Comment http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/04/cnns-blitzer-asks-rep-ellison-about-bush-hitler-comment<br />
<br />
:*Olbermann Blames Iraq War Spending for Bridge Collapse http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/08/04/olbermann-blames-iraq-war-spending-bridge-collapse<br />
<br />
:*'Big Search': The Same Old Biased News Coverage for the Digital World? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/08/04/big-search-same-old-biased-news-coverage-digital-world<br />
<br />
:*NYT Deceives on Dem Vote Dodge http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/04/nyt-deceives-dem-vote-dodge<br />
<br />
:*Abnormally Cold Temperatures in Texas Threaten Cotton Crop http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/04/abnormally-cold-temperatures-texas-threaten-cotton-crop<br />
<br />
:*Unreported Poll: Congress Gets 3% Approval Rating For Handling Iraq War http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/04/unreported-poll-congress-gets-3-approval-rating-handling-iraq-war<br />
<br />
:*CNN's King Played Softball With Gore, But Pressed Cheney With Hard Questions http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/08/01/cnns-king-played-softball-gore-pressed-cheney-hard-questions<br />
<br />
:*ABC's Harris: British PM 'Potentially No More Poodle' to Bush http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/07/30/abcs-harris-british-pm-potentially-no-more-poodle-bush<br />
<br />
:*Margaret Carlson Regrets Lack of 'Will' to Raise Taxes as '$4,000 a Minute' Spent in Iraq http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/04/margaret-carlson-regrets-lack-will-raise-taxes-4-000-minute-spent-iraq<br />
<br />
:*WashPost Wrongly Claimed US Is Still Biggest Greenhouse Gas Emitter http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/08/05/washpost-wrongly-claimed-us-still-biggest-greenhouse-gas-emitter<br />
<br />
:*Saudi Book Suppression Via UK Libel Laws: Where's the Outrage? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/08/05/saudi-book-suppression-uk-libel-laws-wheres-outrage<br />
<br />
:Have a great conservative day! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:16, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, taking a quick look at some of those examples it seems they're somewhat better. Still doesn't explain why the most blatantly stupid thing newsbusters seems to have written is on the front page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:36, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ninth Curcit Court==<br />
Is there a link to this story?--[[User:Rube|Rube]] 15:35, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: This story is an exclusive for Conservapedia. We do run exclusive stories periodically. I'll see if I can find a link to the decision itself. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== NY Daily News Misleads About Bush Linking Iraq and 9/11 ==<br />
<br />
I found this quote from George W. Bush and was wondering how he ''isn't'' making a connection between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda/9-11<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."<br />
</blockquote> < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html ><br />
Any thoughts/opinions? {{unsigned|BillOhannity}}<br />
<br />
*''"As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said"''. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:06, 7 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Funny Mark Twain quote ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this would be good for the daily historical quote, but I got a laugh out of it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
"People who don't read the newspapers are uninformed. People who do read the newspapers are misinformed." -- Mark Twain<br />
</blockquote><br />
--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:19, 8 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Excellent. Thanks. I've posted your funny (and true) quote on the front page. In Christ--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:59, 8 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Whoops! I was going from memory and had the wording wrong. In the interest of accuracy, here is the exact quote:<br />
<blockquote><br />
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."<br />
</blockquote><br />
Apologies.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:47, 8 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== undocumented immigrant murders three college students ==<br />
<br />
Remember those three college kids killed in Newark, with an additional student being listed in stable condition after suffering knife and gunshot wounds.<br />
<br />
The murderer was an undocumented immigrant from Peru, [http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/10/schoolyard.killings/index.html according to CNN] (see 9th paragraph).<br />
<br />
--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I was just watching this as well. So sad.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::It might be worth noting on the main page that he was Peruvian, not Mexican. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 14:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: That's fine, Hoji. Please fix it up how you think best at Template:Mainpageright. I don't have an ax to grind here, except to convey the truth about a profound tragedy. God help the victims and their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Fox says it too, in the first paragraph [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292717,00.html]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::In the midst of tragedy, let's not forget our American heritage. Constitutional law is founded on the presumtion of innocence until guilt is proven. In this case, we have victims who cannot identify the perpetrator, and three suspects. The Peruvian guy has been charged as a suspect; we don't know that he is "the murderer." Maybe in a Communist society we could make that assertion, but I implore everyone to remember the American-friendly policy of Conservapedia. Is he an illigal alien? Yes. Is he a murderer? Actually, we don't know that yet. --[[User:Fred]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Harvard_abortion_study&diff=127053Talk:Harvard abortion study2007-04-25T18:03:30Z<p>Fred: Comment</p>
<hr />
<div>:Rarely have a seen a more blatant example of [[junk science]]. You can't exclude people who die of breast cancer, from a study on breast cancer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm sorry but wait just one cotton-picking horn-swaggling carn-sarnint (civility filter on) minute here, it doesnt say that the people who were excluded from followup as a result from death had died of breast cancer. I have a hard time believing they'd just ignore those deaths if they did occur, where on earth did you get tie impression that they did? Further, where the entry reads that it excludes women who got cancer afterwards, its excluding women who did and who didnt have abortions who got cancer afterwards because in those circumstances they're outside of the control of the experiment. You're misreporting out of context factoids that otherwise would show how stirctly they adhered to the scientific method in a pathetic attempt to show how the study ignored the most relevant data it was examining, as though the entire scientific community wouldnt have jumped on their necks already. No wonder why the CPedia front page gloats that "Only on Conservapedia" will use of the scientific method be deemed a sin.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 13:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::#It doesn't say that. It says ''Only on Conservapedia: this study debunked.''<br />
::#Thanks for turning on your civility filter: I read you loud and clear.<br />
::--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It seems that footnote 6 to the article argues that there is not a link between cancer and abortion.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)1048247<br />
<br />
<br />
How about a link to the actual study so we can draw our own conclusions instead of reading Andy's slanted opinions? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Here's the NY Times's spin on it: [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Abortion-Cancer.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:And here's an older NY Times story: [http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/AbortionBreastCancer.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can I point out, that although I think I have a scientific background, that I have no idea what: <br />
::"Among parous women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced a.."<br />
<br />
actually means in real terms for women. If this is meant to be an informative article, than it fails because it makes the mistake of in attempting to be scientifically accurate, it actually presents scientific gobbledegook. The HR is presumably a hazard ratio. Does that mean that the increased risk represents a 1.58%, or 58% increase, and an increase on what? If the chance of developing breast cancer is 50%, then is the increase to 51.8% (hardly a significant increase) or to 76% (a pretty devastating significant). On the other hand if the risk is 0.05%, then and increase to 1.63% would be pretty significant, whereas one to 0.076% would not really be significant at all.<br />
<br />
Please consider your audience. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That part should probably be rewritten. Basically it means that the women in the study who had children (parous) were 58% more likely to get progesterone negative breast cancer if they ever had an abortion, and the same women were somewhat less likely to get progesterone positive breast cancer. If I did the math right there were 442 breast cancer cases among women who ever had an abortion. 59 (13%) were progresterone negative and 92 (21%) were progesterone positive. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:57, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::And according to [http://www.breastcancer.org] the prevalence among US women of breast cancer in general is about 1 in 8. Though to extrapolate the risk for PR- from the study (ie, what % of women who had abortions will get it by these figures) we'd need to know the rate of PR- breast cancer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks, Murray, your comments are enlightening. Catwatcher, realize that I'm quoting from the study and it is the fault of the authors for downplaying that fact and not explaining it better. But as Murray shows, these are significant percentages, not the unimportant ones that you suggest might be the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::In this case, I'm not playing devils advocate or anything. I am genuinely confused by this article. When I read the article as it stands at the moment, I cannot actually understand what it is saying, and whether there is an increased or a decreased risk of cancer if a woman has had an abortion. Perhaps I should come back and readi it tomorrow when all the argy-bargy has finished!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Here's a summary of the findings: breast cancer in general (including all types) was not more likely in women who reported ever having an abortion. Women who reported miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) were somewhat less likely to get breast cancer, though the effect was fairly small and did not quite meet the criterion for statistical significance. Still speaking of all types of breast cancer, the findings were the same regardless of whether the women ever gave birth, or whether an abortion occurred before or after they gave birth. The hormones estrogen and progesterone are implicated in some breast cancers, so they also looked at these specific cancer types. Reported abortion had no effect on the likelihood of getting estrogen receptor positive or estrogen receptor negative (ER+ or ER-) breast cancer. Progresterone receptor positive (PR+) breast cancer was not related to abortion in women who never had kids, and was a little less likely in women who had kids and reported an abortion compared with those with kids and no abortion (that effect also was not quite statistically significant). PR- negative cancer, though, was 58% more likely in women who reported having an abortion if they also had children at some point. About 80% of the women in the study had children. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Great analysis, but I do quibble with your statement about women who did not have any children. The ranges are so wide on the 95% CI that no conclusions can be drawn about them. The numbers are statistically insignificant, another sign of how the 100,000+ women in this study were simply too young for studying breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Andy - It was statistically not significant, though barely - p = .06 - if I understand correctly what you were referring to. The criterion for statistical significance is arbitrary and doesn't always reflect whether something is meaningful. On the other hand, statistical significance is dependent on the sample size, and with such a huge sample any effect that doesn't reach significance is bound to be small and likely not meaningful. So I can't argue with your quibble. I already have a copy of the article but I appreciate the offer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Opinions in article ==<br />
<br />
''this age disparity is analogous to an attempt to draw conclusions about heart disease by studying teenagers.''<br />
<br />
This statement is not a fact, however, it leads readers to believe it is. So I changed the sentenced and attributed the sentence to the person that first stated the sentence to make it a fact.<br />
<br />
: The analogy is factual. Don't make your change a third time. It's inappropriate to insert someone's user id. into an entry anyway. The page history has that info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Would like to start by pointing out one clear error for starters. At the start of the study, the women where between ages of 29-46 [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814] So, how can one get the avrage age of the womens in the study to be 42 now 14 years later when the yongest women in the study should be atleast 43? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: By the way, I have a copy of the paper and can email to a few '''open-minded''' readers here who want to analyze its or my claims further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I would be interested in reading the study to draw my own opinions ... my email link should work. no guarantees as to how quick i'll get to reading the study though. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:As no one seams to have an answer to the question i raised, im going to remove the mention about the average age of 42. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:07, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I see my edit got reverted, but could i have some explanation why please, as it sounds kinda weird to claim the average age of the women in the reasearch to be 42 when youngest is 43. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: I thought I had explained this here, but now I can't see it. So maybe what I wrote was not saved. Your point is a good one.<br />
<br />
::: The study ended in 2003, when the youngest would have been 39. The average of 42 applied to those who had an abortion, which means they were on average 12 years old when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide. It makes sense that the younger side of the population was more likely to have had an abortion, so an average of 42 is plausible.<br />
<br />
::: Regardless, that is the age given by the study says and I've offered to email it to folks who want to analyze it. One took me up on my offer here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
They did a pretty poor job of reporting the age - presumably the 42 reported is at the end of the study, but if they clarified that anywhere I can't find it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That's part of the spin, of course. If they reported that of 42 up front, then many informed readers would immediately react, "that's too young for most women to have developed breast cancer!" FYI, I found the age 42 in table 1. Murray, let me know if you need a copy. Your comments are good and I appreciate what you have to say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
For the sake of comparison, the Reuters report on this (I haven't seen the original article so am not sure if this is accurate) said: "Michels' team noted that the studies that had seemed to show abortion caused breast cancer also mostly looked at younger women who had not reached menopause." <br />
<br />
<br />
::By the way Andy, thanks for your above comment. Much more data would probably be required for either of us to change our mind about the issue so that we agreed, but it's nice to discuss it calmly and rationally [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Full study text ==<br />
<br />
Anyone wanting the study text, contact me. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 14:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hey, Colin could you please send me the full study text. --[[User:Staple|Staple]] 18:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I fail to see why it would have been necessary to include African American or Hispanic women: their reproductive organs do not differ from that of white women.<br />
The only difference could thus come form lifestyle and environmental differences, but that was not what this study was about.<br />
<br />
May I remind everyone here that an earlier study that seemed to show a correlation, was not ripped apart and scrutinized, in fact it was supported and cited from.<br />
<br />
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]<br />
<br />
:Ethnicity is a valid issue. Reproductive organs don't differ but genetics sometimes do. Given that breast cancer has a genetic component, it could be different for different ethnic groups (I have no idea whether it is). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You would have a good point, if this was a study about inherited vulnerability to breast cancer.<br />
The existence of a special gene carried by African American or Hispanic women only, that would somehow increase vulnerability to breast cancer, only after an abortion, and not even in the case of a completed pregnancy, seems highly unlikely to me, although I do not have a Ph.D in genetics.<br />
In any case I do not believe this is sufficient to "debunk" this study.<br />
<br />
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]<br />
<br />
I don't have a PhD in genetics either but that's not quite what I meant. It's possible that, for example, that the prevalence of genetic polymorphisms that are associated with breast cancer occur at different rates in different ethnic groups. At least some polymorphic genes are related to hormone function, and abortion alters hormone function relative to giving birth. So it's conceivable there could be a difference. Having said that, I wouldn't claim that this issue means the study is meaningless, and my reading of the research is that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer - my talk page has a list of studies that have found no link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The authors should have disclosed this weakness in their study. Breast cancer prevalence '''does''' have a strong ethnic component. Asians, for example, have breast cancer much less than whites. I bet a significant percentage (e.g., 5%) of the population in the Harvard study were Asian, but the authors concealed that.<br />
<br />
: Murray, I looked at your list on your talk page that purports to present studies deny an abortion-breast cancer link. How many of those "studies" have you read? Zero? Less than 10%? Don't you think you should disclose that to the reader???? One that I recognize I have read (Lancet), and it is neither a study nor a denial that abortion increases breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Hi Andy. I've read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions. I'm not sure what your issue with the Lancet article is. It is essentially a meta-analysis, which is a useful and novel contribution even if no new data were collected. For the sake of discussion I will post more details on each study when I have time - have already done some of that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Comment ==<br />
<br />
Why discuss this at all? The Conservapedia editors have made it clear that any attempt to clarify, un-bias, or balance this article will be reversed, and that repeated attempts will merely make them close it off for revision. The whole POINT of Conservapedia is to present a one-sided (non-liberal) viewpoint. If a reader were interested in scientific accuracy, he or she would look elsewhere; the Conservapedia reader wants a validation of the viewpoints he or she already holds (or, in the case of liberals with too much time on their hands, a cheap laugh).</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=60604Separation of church and state2007-03-23T21:27:03Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The [[Establishment Clause]] of the Constitution has been interpreted in this manner, notably by [[Thomas Jefferson]] (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superceded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 (although the superceding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States). <br />
<br />
Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the [[Declaration of Independence]] may equally refer to the [[Deist]] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored. Conservapedia articles typically do not acknowledge that non-Christians might still believe in God.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=60601Separation of church and state2007-03-23T21:26:32Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The [[Establishment Clause]] of the Constitution has been interpreted in this manner, notably by [[Thomas Jefferson]] (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superceded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 (although the superceding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States). <br />
<br />
Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the [[Deist]] [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored. Conservapedia articles typically do not acknowledge that non-Christians might still believe in God.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=60598Separation of church and state2007-03-23T21:25:31Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The [[Establishment Clause]] of the Constitution has been interpreted in this manner, notably by [[Thomas Jefferson]] (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> [1] Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superceded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 (although the superceding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States). <br />
<br />
Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the [[Deist]] [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored. Conservapedia articles typically do not acknowledge that non-Christians might still believe in God.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=60595James Madison2007-03-23T21:23:48Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref><br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the [[Federalist Party]]'s opposition to the War (and to Madison's [[Democratic-Republican Party]]) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican [[Thomas Jefferson]] (and unlike Conservapedia), was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Madison, James}}<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=60590Thomas Jefferson2007-03-23T21:22:59Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the third [[President of the United States of America]] and often credited as the author of the [[Declaration of Independence]], though key portions of that document were simply taken from the [[Virginia Declaration of Rights]]. <br />
<br />
Jefferson was a prominent architect, inventor and scientist. His presidency had significant failures, and is best known for doubling the area of the United States with the controversial [[Louisiana Purchase]] from France.<br />
<br />
Though Jefferson did not describe his beliefs in that manner, many textbooks and online resources claim that he was a [[deist]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> <br />
<br />
With regard to Christianity, Jefferson admired the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He produced a compilation "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels," familiarly known as "The Jefferson Bible," in which he included the passages which he felt described Jesus' life and teachings, while removing references to the miracles and to Jesus' divinity.<br />
<br />
In an 1803 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, he stated:<br />
:I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of [the Christian religion]. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.<ref>Jefferson, Thomas, April 21, 1803: Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush[http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html]</ref><br />
<br />
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823<br />
<br />
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Reason is the tool to use to change opinions—not censorship." 1801 Inaugural speech. <br />
He died July 4, 1826 at age 83 in Monticello, Virginia. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents Thomas Jefferson]] By Jim Hargrove, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
Recently it has been reported the Jefferson had secretly been in bed with his black slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson, along with [[James Madison]], was a member of the [[Democratic-Republican Party]], an early poitical group that was opposed by the [[Federalist Party]]. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''References:''' <references/><br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Jefferson, Thomas}}<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=60586Thomas Jefferson2007-03-23T21:22:28Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the third [[President of the United States of America]] and often credited as the author of the [[Declaration of Independence]], though key portions of that document were simply taken from the [[Virginia Declaration of Rights]]. <br />
<br />
Jefferson was a prominent architect, inventor and scientist. His presidency had significant failures, and is best known for doubling the area of the United States with the controversial [[Louisiana Purchase]] from France.<br />
<br />
Though Jefferson did not describe his beliefs in that manner, many textbooks and online resources claim that he was a [[deist]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> <br />
<br />
With regard to Christianity, Jefferson admired the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He produced a compilation "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels," familiarly known as "The Jefferson Bible," in which he included the passages which he felt described Jesus' life and teachings, while removing references to the miracles and to Jesus' divinity.<br />
<br />
In an 1803 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, he stated:<br />
:I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of [the Christian religion]. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.<ref>Jefferson, Thomas, April 21, 1803: Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush[http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html]</ref><br />
<br />
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823<br />
<br />
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Reason is the tool to use to change opinions—not censorship." 1801 Inaugural speech. <br />
He died July 4, 1826 at age 83 in Monticello, Virginia. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents Thomas Jefferson]] By Jim Hargrove, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
Recently it has been reported the Jefferson had secretly been in bed with his black slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson, along with [[James Madison]], was a member of the [[Democratic-Republican party]], an early poitical group that was opposed by the [[Federalist Party]]. <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''References:''' <references/><br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Jefferson, Thomas}}<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&diff=60570Talk:Ann Coulter2007-03-23T21:20:19Z<p>Fred: /* "Total Fag" */</p>
<hr />
<div>I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.<br />
<br />
[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.<br />
<br />
Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:<br />
<br />
::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....<br />
<br />
::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools. <br />
<br />
:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate&mdash;or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual." <br />
<br />
:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.<br />
<br />
::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}<br />
<br />
It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.<br />
<br />
This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."<br />
<br />
This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ann's next book==<br />
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:<br />
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::The liberals are for free speech <u>unless</u> it is a conservative voicing their views <u>not</u> using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<references/><br />
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Category ==<br />
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.<br />
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.<br />
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.<br />
<br />
== Biographical data ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc. <br />
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?<br />
<br />
:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Total Fag" ==<br />
<br />
For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual. <br />
<br />
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?<br />
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.<br />
<br />
So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.<br />
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=55425James Madison2007-03-21T22:22:49Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref><br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the [[Federalist party]]'s opposition to the War (and to Madison's [[Democratic-Republican party]]) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican [[Thomas Jefferson]] (and unlike Conservapedia), was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52730James Madison2007-03-20T22:58:46Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref><br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson (and unlike Conservapedia), was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52727James Madison2007-03-20T22:58:21Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref><br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52726James Madison2007-03-20T22:58:07Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref><br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52724James Madison2007-03-20T22:57:39Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> <br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]<br />
<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref></div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52720James Madison2007-03-20T22:56:38Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]<br />
<ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref></div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52713James Madison2007-03-20T22:54:08Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of church and state]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52709James Madison2007-03-20T22:53:32Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a [[Separation of Church and State]]: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52704James Madison2007-03-20T22:51:36Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
<br />
MADSION ON [[SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE]]<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a separation between Church and State: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52701James Madison2007-03-20T22:50:52Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroit by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
MADSION ON RELIGION<br />
<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a separation between Church and State: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=52695James Madison2007-03-20T22:47:44Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
James Madison, considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 4th president of the [[United States]]. He served as president from 1809-1817. He also did the much important work at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. <br />
He was born in March 16, 1751 on the estate of Blue Ridge in Virginia. He is known to today as "Father of the Constitution" because of writing and proposing the Virginia Plan which would later become part of the Constitution. He died June 28, 1836 in Montpelier, Virginia at age 86. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents James Madison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press </ref> <br />
<br />
THE WAR OF 1812<br />
Madison's presidency was not without problems. In particular, the British seizing of American ships was something that he could not resolve diplomatically. Instead, he pushed for war, and the U.S. eventually invaded Canada (then still a British colony), in what became known as the [[War of 1812]]. That war saw the seizing of Detroid by Canada, and the burning of Washington, D.C. by the British. In hindsight, the War of 1812 is often viewed as a mistake, but at the time the Federalist party's opposition to the War (and to Madison's Democratic-Republican party) led to the Federalists being viewed as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American," and the party disbanded soon after the next election year. <br />
<br />
MADSION ON RELIGION<br />
Madison, along with his fellow Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, was adamant in maintaining a separation between Church and State: "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)<br />
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). <br />
<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Should_public_displays_of_the_10_Commandments_be_allowed_under_the_constitution%3F&diff=48423Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?2007-03-19T17:54:30Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - United States Constitution<br />
----------------------<br />
Amendments can be amended. The fact that we can all legally enjoy a beer is proof (except for you college freshmen and sophomores in New York State)<br />
----------------------- <br />
<br />
Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution; it perfectly constitutional to allow a public display of the ten commandments. In fact, if one takes the constitution at its word rather than twisting it (probably by calling it an "evolving document"), it is '''''UN'''''constitutional for congress to prohibit any public display of religion.<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Nobody is suggesting that displays of the 10 Commandments by private individuals should not be allowed. The issue is whether any branch of the Government should allow the public display of religious documents for the express purpose of encouraging their acceptance. Specifically, allowing a judge to display the protestant version of the 10 commandments (there are differences between different Christian sects) and to imply he is using them to superceede the actual laws of the country.<br />
<br />
:Surely it depends on the context: what message the people who placed the display meant to send, what message is perceived by those who view it. <br />
<br />
:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
'''Reply:''' Despite your straw man, I will answer that, yes, it would be protected. Perhaps the judge who has the swastika should never have been approved as judge, or perhaps there may even be good grounds to impeach him, yet his swastika should not be removed under the excuse that it is religious symbol; that would be unconstitutional. Fortunately I think that there is little chance of this ever being a problem.<br />
<br />
:Well, I think that the legal situation here, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, '''must surely depend''' on what is in the judge's heart. If the judge is, in his heart, a Hindu, and has put the swastika up for the purpose of expressing his Hinduism, then it is sending a ''religious'' message. But what if the judge is not really a Hindu at all, but is actually a Nazi, and has put it up to send a ''political'' message and is just pretending that it is a religious message? Is it the same situation? <br />
<br />
:Although I used the phrase "free speech" and you might be right: it might be protected regardless of whether it is "really" a Hindu or Nazi symbol, and in both cases the ''speech'' might be protected, but that would not necessarily make the judge immune from consequences. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers?<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 20:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:'''It depends.''' In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B. DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message. <br />
<br />
:Even in the case of something like the Ten Commandments, which are part of the religious heritage of the vast majority of American citizens, there are opportunities for sectarian friction, since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. Incredible as it may seem, this was a real issue when the Eagles began placing these monuments in the 1950s. "It wasn’t until after a few of the monoliths were placed that some criticism surfaced because of the different versions of the Ten Commandments and their numbering. Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and the wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958. Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered."[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*'''Comment''' Some resources for exploring this question include:<br />
**[http://morallaw.org/ Foundation for Moral Law], Judge Roy Moore's organization and website, "Defending our Inalienable Right to Publicly Acknowledge God."<br />
**[http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf Court decision] removing Moore from office (which states "Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country")<br />
**[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The real history of the Ten Commandments project] Website about the partnership between Cecil B. DeMille and the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which placed many Ten Commandments monuments in public places<br />
**[http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html ACLU's website] explaining their viewpoint on Ten Commandments cases: "A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*The ACLU is clearly wrong on this one. The first Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religeon. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)<br />
**Perhaps the ACLU is wrong, but I doubt that they are "''clearly''" wrong. If the issue were clear, it would not be controversial. Since the ACLU has won some of these cases, some judges must have thought some cases of this kind were not "clear." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:32, 21 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
'''Reply:''' I don't quite agree with your argument. The ACLU has an agenga; they are trying to remove religious symbols from public display. Despite the fact that allowing a public display of the 10 commandments '''''is''''' clearly protected by the constitution, the ACLU ''still'' fights it because it is against their agenda. This is why (I believe at any rate) that people call the constitution an "evolving document" and why the 1st ammendment is re-interpreted "eperation of church and state"; The only hope for the ACLU is to '''''reduce''''' clarity.<br />
<br />
::: Tim, I'm a bit confused by your logic. You state that "regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religeon." This isn't an issue of congress passing a law prohibiting the display but an issue of whether government officials can have such displays and if so under what circumstances. It isn't at all clear to me what that has to do with congress passing regulations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:03, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: The only way to prohibit displays of the 10 commandments would be for congress to make a law against them. This is prohibited by the free exercise clause: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [Of Religion.]" The only reason ever given for prohibiting government officials from having displays of the 10 commandments is that it violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is nothing in the establishment clause that prohibits officials from having displays. People say that there is a "Seperation of Church and State," in the first ammendment, but that is not true. The establishment clause was put in to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. (like the Church of England) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
REPLY: We need to be clear, that although the Constitution does not use the PHRASE "Separation of Church and State," it may contain the IDEA. The writings of Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists) and of James Madison, in particular, indicate that a separation of Church and State is EXACTLY what was intended by the 1st Amendment.<br />
<br />
::::::People also say there's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in the Constitution, but gosh darn it, I can't seem to find those words anywhere! Does that mean that those, too, are invalid? A public display of the 10 Commandments, on public/government property, is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that it implies that one religion (in this case any one of a number of Christian denominations) is endorsed and valued more highly than any other by government. Government should remain neutral to religion, and the 10 Commandments are certainly not a religiously neutral document.<br />
<br />
:::: Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument. You are dismissing out of hand the actual logic used in all cases by the courts where they have struck down such displays and therefore think that the only relevant case is if congress prohibited it? Am I following you correctly? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:47, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::'''Reply''' I am saying that the "Seperation of Church and State" is not Found in the Constitution, therefore 10 commandments displays cannot be banned based on it, and any court ruling contrary to that is not following the constitution. And the only way to properly ban it (that I can think of)would be an act of congress, and that is prohibited by the free exercise clause. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:58, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
::::: Point- since the entire argument revolves around whether or not there is an establishment clause problem, it might be best to focus on that issue. Also note that one doesn't need a "Seperation of Church and State" to consider the placement of a 10 commandments to be an establishment of religion (note that not even everyone agrees how to split them up. As far as I can tell there are three major divisions, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (although some Protestants use the Jewish division, and some Protestants(Anglicans?) use the Catholic division). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
The Establishment clause is very clear, and it does not prohibit government officials free exercise of religion. The division of the commandments is irrelevant to this debate. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
::You're right, it doesn't prohibit government officials the free exercise of their religion. It does, however, prohibit governmental endorsement of any religion, which would be implicit in the placement of such a monument on public/government property.<br />
<br />
:It's not quite irrelevant, because it means that even though the Ten Commandments are common to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, any particular public display of them ''in which they are numbered one through ten'' is identifiable as being the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish "version." How many people are aware of this, or how important it is, I don't really know. But I'll bet a nickel that Judge Roy Moore ''is'' aware of this, and that his monument uses the Protestant numbering. (I haven't checked yet...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I finally found a largish image of Moore's monument[http://www.retakingamerica.com/ten_commandments_001.html]... and, not to my surprise, see that he uses the Protestant numbering. (Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:But really, the interesting question is: why are people making such a fuss about this? I have the feeling that neither side is being candid about their motivation. <br />
<br />
:If Judge Roy Moore (or anyone else) wants to acknowledge God, he can do so with his actions and with the conduct of his life... I don't know why he needs a ton of stone to do it. If I felt that the only message people intended to send by a display of the Ten Commandments was that they personally oppose murder, adultery, profane language, and Sunday shopping, I don't think I would see any harm in it. <br />
<br />
:On the other hand, I don't really think I really equate a public display of the Ten Commandments, with a legal requirement that, as a condition of employment, every government official and university professor must subscribe to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 7 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Freedom of religion ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Phist|Phist]]I have no problem with someone putting up a massive banner with the 10 Commandments on it all over their house or workplace, but you have to be prepared for your next door neighbor putting up an equally massive banner with satanic slogans on it. The USA does not have a state religion, and as such if you allow public displays of one religion's tenants you must extend that to all religions. So if you're prepared to see Islamic, Buddist, Hindu, CoS(Church of Satan), Athiest, Shamanistic and Nihilistic banners too, go ahead and put up those commandments.<br />
<br />
:The moral values of Western culture aren't based of Satanic, Animist, and Shamanistic ideals. They are based directly off of what is described on the Ten Commandments. It's not a religious point; It's a historical one, because the entire justice system is based off of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Unfortunately, we're still not allowed to make laws outlawing religious displays just because they're for a false religion. For soem fool reason, the Founding Fathers didn't make Christianity the State Religion of the US, so if the courts allow the 10 Commandments, they HAVE to allow everyone to put up their 'holy' laws as well. Do you want YOUR kids reading quotes from the Satanic Bible in school? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:49, 11 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::That might have something to do with the fact that there was not then and is not now any one religion called 'Christianity'. Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans all come readily to mind. So also do the Quakers, the Puritans. Today the number of different branches of Christianity is even greater. Which one should be the official religion of America and why? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I think you missed the point of my statement; the Ten Commandments could easily be considered as historical artifacts, because of the significant impact that they have had on American society as a whole for over 2,000 years. I doubt that The Satanic Bible, The Qu'ran, etc. have had anywhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:53, 11 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::The second largest religion in the world is Islam. It seems that the Koran has had somewhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments - especially given that the Ten Commandments had a couple thousand years' head start to make its impact. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 16:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::''Western'' culture; The Qu'ran didn't have the impact on ''Western'' culture like the Bible did. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 14:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::By your reasoning then [[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']] the public schools could teach history OF the Bible. I don't think that's likely to happen. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Public schools ''can'' and ''do'' teach the ''history'' of the Bible, in ''history'' class. The curriculum I am familiar with (Washington State) has a 2-week high school freshman course on the ''history'' of Biblical times, Jesus's life, etc. As a historical, literary object, the Bible is extremely important. Just like the ten Commandments have significant historical impact. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 14:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT) <br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
CrimesoftheLemon:<br />
<br />
Absolutely not. It's a clear breach of the 1st Amendment.<br />
<br />
==Shouldn't the title be...==<br />
*'''Are''' public displays of the Ten Commandments allowed under the constitution?<br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
*Does the Constitution '''ever''' prohibit public displays of the Ten Commandments?<br />
<br />
As it reads now, it seems to be asserting that the Constitution does not allow public displays of the Ten Commandments, and the debate is whether or not it should (presumably by amendment). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=46203Censorship2007-03-18T20:50:37Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Censorship''' is the act of withholding information from a larger audience by a group of people or a single person who has the power to do so. Oftentimes it is done for the protection of the ''people'', or to keep the group of people from knowing something bad about the empowered people. Conservapedia is heavily censored in order to maintain a right-wing focus, free of "liberal bias."<br />
<br />
{{stub2}}</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=42246Separation of church and state2007-03-16T21:39:42Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution [insert link] has been interpreted in this manner, notably by Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The Treaty of Tripoli, drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." [1] Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superceded by the Treaty of Peace and Amity in 1805 (although the superceding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States). <br />
<br />
Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the Deist [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored. Conservapedia articles typically do not acknowledge that non-Christians might still believe in God.<br />
<br />
[1] Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=42245Separation of church and state2007-03-16T21:39:09Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution [insert link] has been interpreted in this manner, notably by Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The Treaty of Tripoli, drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," [1]. Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superceded by the Treaty of Peace and Amity in 1805 (although the superceding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States). <br />
<br />
Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the Deist [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored. Conservapedia articles typically do not acknowledge that non-Christians might still believe in God.<br />
<br />
[1] Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=42242Separation of church and state2007-03-16T21:38:05Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution [insert link] has been interpreted in this manner, notably by Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The statement in the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," [1]. Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superceded by the Treaty of Peace and Amity in 1805 (although the superceding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States). <br />
<br />
Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the Deist [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored. Conservapedia articles typically do not acknowledge that non-Christians might still believe in God.<br />
<br />
[1] Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=41571Separation of church and state2007-03-16T16:39:13Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution [insert link] has been interpreted in this manner, notably by Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The statement in the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, that "The United States is in no sense founded on Christianity," [possibly misquoted; insert reference] is often ignored by right-minded Christians who claim to know the Truth. Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the Deist [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored.</div>Fredhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=41507Separation of church and state2007-03-16T15:57:26Z<p>Fred: </p>
<hr />
<div>A "myth" perpetrated by "revisionist historians" that there should be no official national religion in the United States. Seeing the results of centuries of religious strife in then-officially Christian Europe, the Founders chose to prohibit the state from endorsing any particular faith. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution [insert link] has been interpreted in this manner, notably by Thomas Jefferson (who coined the phrase "Wall of separation between Church and State" in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists [insert reference]). <br />
<br />
Many Conservapedia readers, however, believe that this prohibits the state from endorsing any particular sect of Christianity, while claiming that the Founding Fathers of course required the United States to be a Christian country, founded by and for Christians. The statement in the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The United States is in no sense founded on Christianity," [possibly misquoted; insert reference] is often ignored by right-minded Christians who claim to know the Truth. Likewise, the evidence that the reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence [insert link] may equally refer to the Deist [insert link] God rather than the Christian God is often ignored.</div>Fred