Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Political neutrality

2007-03-11T21:01:08Z

Fullmetajacket:

What kind of article is this?! I petition that it be either removed or completely rewritten. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 18:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In the battle of Good and Evil, being Neutral is as bad as being Evil. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 17:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Abiogenesis

2007-03-11T20:58:43Z

Fullmetajacket:

God doesn't count as "Alive"? That doesn't sound right... --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Spartan Soldiers

2007-03-11T20:56:50Z

Fullmetajacket:

It would be impolite of me to mention that the Spartans accepted homosexual relationships among men as natural and expected, right? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias

2007-03-11T20:55:41Z

Fullmetajacket:

The following things express a well known liberal bias.
* [[CNN]]
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* The [[Daily Show]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[Hollywood]]
* [[Reality]]

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-11T20:50:51Z

Fullmetajacket: /* No */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO<sub>2</sub> is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Fourty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO<sub>2</sub> from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Fullmetajacket

2007-03-11T20:47:05Z

Fullmetajacket: Hey, Aschlafly...

how do I change my username?

I haven't the faintest idea, sorry. Make a new account?

== Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? ==

Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? I need to look at his edits and then decide if to ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

No idea. I just saw his name in "Recent changes". You can't just change his name?

ASchlafly blocked him on the basis of his name already, but I reverted the rest of his edits just now. So everything's cool. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:12, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your personal views but please try not to let your opinion ruin your edits. I myself have been criticized for the same. --[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 12:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the concern, but it's not 'opinion' if it's the TRUTH. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a clean resource. This is family-friendly. Please, please abide by the [The_Conservapedia_Commandments|rules] or blocking result. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is this about the "pen*s" entry? Sorry but, it just seems very strange to me to call this an encyclopedia, then define certain chunks of (in this case medical) reality as being nonexistant. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:American Heritage Girls

2007-03-11T20:40:24Z

Fullmetajacket:

What was too liberal about the Girl Scouts? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

National debt of the United States

2007-03-11T20:39:36Z

Fullmetajacket:

The '''National Debt''' is the amount of money the [[United States]] government owes various [[China|creditors]] due to [[deficit spending]]. As of March 11th, 2007, the National Debt was more than 8 [[trillion]] [[dollars]].

[http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ The National Debt Clock]

[[Category: Economics]]

National debt of the United States

2007-03-11T20:38:49Z

Fullmetajacket:

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-11T20:31:31Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Foreign Treaties are liberal? */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

User talk:Fullmetajacket

2007-03-11T20:30:24Z

Fullmetajacket:

God

2007-03-11T06:41:52Z

Fullmetajacket:

God is the creator of the universe. He is a trinity comprised of the [[Father]], the [[Jesus Christ|Son]], and the [[Holy Spirit]]. His [[creation]] of man is described in the [[Book of Genesis]] in the [[Bible]]. Belief in God (specifically, belief in [[Jesus Christ]] as your personal lord and savior) is a necessary condition to go to [[heaven]] (rather than [[hell]]) in the afterlife.

It's claimed that [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], and [[Judaism]] worship the same God in different ways. This claim is regarded by some as a way to convert Jews and Christians to Islam, since it supports the idea that Abrahamic religion has "grown" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm</ref> However, many are skeptical of this idea.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm</ref>

Common powers attributed to God include [[omnipotence]] (the ability to do anything) and [[omniscience]] (the ability to know anything) although even that level of detail is not common throughout all monotheists{{Fact|date=March2007}}. Many believers in God also believe that he eternally punishes the wicked in [[hell]] and eternally rewards the righteous in [[heaven]] and variants of this theme are found in all the Abrahamic faiths.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Yin and Yang

2007-03-11T06:33:44Z

Fullmetajacket:

The "yin" and "yang" are forces in [[Taoist]] beliefs that it seeks to unite or harmonize. The diagram of the yin and yang is below. Yin is the dark portion, representing inactive, negative, peaceful, or femaleness. Yang is the light portion, representing active, positive, sometimes violent maleness.

[[Image:Yin_yang.jpg]]

[[Category: Philosophy]]

Pentagon

2007-03-11T06:32:26Z

Fullmetajacket:

A Pentagon is a [[polygon]] with five sides.

It is also the name of a large, five-sided building in [[Washington, DC]].

[[Category:Geometry]]

Sumerians

2007-03-11T06:01:35Z

Fullmetajacket: (Terrible grammar on this.)

Ancient inhabitants of Sumer.
Their most famous king was Sargon the Great.
They had a written language consisting of [[cuneiform]] on clay tablets, and their most lasting architecture are the [[ziggurats]].

Maltheism

2007-03-11T06:00:01Z

Fullmetajacket:

The [[Philosophy|philosophical]] belief that God (or the gods) is/are inherently malignant and/or hostile towards humanity. This belief is not tied to any one religion, being found among [[Gnostic]] [[Christians]], the ancient [[Sumerians]], and [[Cthulhu]]-worshippers.

[[Category: Religion]]

Collective bargaining

2007-03-11T05:51:15Z

Fullmetajacket:

Collective bargaining is the negotiations between an employer and a group of employees that determine the conditions of employment. It works like this: the workers say "raise our salaries, or we will go on strike", so the employer is obligated to raise the workers wages so they will keep working for him.

A key [[communism|Communist]] tactic, subverting the natural relationship between management and labor.

Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?

2007-03-11T05:49:35Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Freedom of religion */

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - United States Constitution

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.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)

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.

: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.

: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)

'''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.

: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?

: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)

What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 20:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

:'''It depends.''' In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B. DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message.

: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)

*'''Comment''' Some resources for exploring this question include:
**[http://morallaw.org/ Foundation for Moral Law], Judge Roy Moore's organization and website, "Defending our Inalienable Right to Publicly Acknowledge God."
**[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")
**[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
**[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)

*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)
**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)

'''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.

::: 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)

::: 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)

::::::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.

:::: 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)

::::'''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)
::::: 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)

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)
::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.

: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)

: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)

: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.

: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.

: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)

== Freedom of religion ==

[[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.

: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)

::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)

Religion

2007-03-11T05:39:53Z

Fullmetajacket:

A system of beliefs about the supernatural.

----

== Religions ==

* [[Christianity]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Wicca]]
* The [[Heaven's Gate]] [[cult]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Rastafarianism]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[SubGeniism]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]
* [[Animism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Jenovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Pastafarianism]] ''(A [[joke religion]])''
* [[Mormonism]]

[[Category: Religion]]

Talk:Bible

2007-03-11T05:34:17Z

Fullmetajacket: Why describe it when we can transcribe it?

no discussion of the Bible? [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-11T05:30:18Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Foreign Treaties are liberal? */

Religion

2007-03-11T05:28:12Z

Fullmetajacket: Added mormonism.

Mormon

2007-03-11T05:26:55Z

Fullmetajacket: Just a stub to start--I don't know much about them.

A splinter sect of [[Christianity]], founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have been visited by the [[angel]] [[Moroni]].

Mormon doctrine forbids drinking alcohol but allows [[polygamy]].

[[Category: Religion]]

Karl Rove

2007-03-11T05:23:33Z

Fullmetajacket: Removed potentially offensive nickname

Karl Rove, born on [[Christmas]], 1950, is the [[Deputy Chief of Staff]] in the [[Bush administration]]. Rove's longtime partnership with [[George W. Bush]] dates back to Bush's terms as [[governor]] of [[Texas]]. Rove ran both of Bush's campaigns for governor and for president.

Rove's track to the top began early, when he dropped out of [[the University of Utah]] to work in the [[College Republican National Committee]]. He quickly demonstrated his political guile, including a daring raid into a [[liberal]] opponent's headquarters . Once inside, Rove stole paper with the man's letterhead, wrote slanderous things on them, and distributed them around town [[[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm]]]]. Rove has also used a number of other innovative strategies, which often is focused around attacking the liberals on their moral shortcomings. Rove's clever strategies even have included sending operatives to sort through opponents trash [[Media:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html]]!

Rove is also one of the people who knows [[Bush]] and reports that Bush is one of the most intellectually gifted [[presidents]] we've ever had. This is further evidence that the characterization of Bush in the liberal media as a bumbling idiot is slanderously untrue.

User talk:N

2007-03-11T05:21:25Z

Fullmetajacket: Hurray for context!

It's nice to see someone adding context links for the science stuff--there's a LOT of one-line entries that don't make any sense all by themselves. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:21, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Income effect

2007-03-11T05:20:02Z

Fullmetajacket:

The income effect is the increased demand for a [[good]], when its price decreases, due to the consumer having more cash (more real income) from the price decrease. The consumer has more money to spend when the price of the good declines, and he uses some of that extra money to buy more of the good. This effect is larger for goods that consumers depend heavily upon, such as certain foods and gasoline.

The income effect is one reason why the [[demand curve]] slopes downward.

[[Category:Economics]]

French fries

2007-03-11T05:16:41Z

Fullmetajacket:

French fries are a tasty food made from [[potato]]es. They are very popular in [[America]] and in England they are called "chips". French fries are often eaten with the addition of [[ketchup]], as many believe that this improves the flavor.

"French" fries are actually Belgian, not French. In Belgium and the Netherlands they are called ''frites'' and are often served with mayonnaise.

At the height of the [[Iraq War]], the Congressional cafeteria served "[[Freedom Fries]]", so as not to have anything associated with our former allies in [[France]] in [[Congress]].

User talk:David R

2007-03-11T05:13:23Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Religions: They're not ALL True! */

====''Please [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new comment]!''====

== Willy's edits ==

If you look at Willy's edits, most of them seem reasonable. I would for example point to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton&curid=6229&diff=16759&oldid=16751 Bill Clinton edit] which took out what appears to be a swipe at George Bush and replaced it with reasonable material. The Bush and Democrat edits similarly seem fine to me. (Also, I'm not sure it makes sense to give an indefinite block for the single use of profanity but that's a separate issue). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I did like the changes he made to the democrat page (and I plan to restore that page), in removing the obvious bias, but he cursed in his explanation of the Bush edit - Commandment #3. There is no room in Conservapedia for obscene language like that. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:36, 25 February 2007 (EST)

: So, and insults aren't tolerated on Wikipedia either- so you warn the person not to do it again and block them if they do. While larger Wikis can afford to be more picky about editing, we don't have that luxury yes. Also, if you are that concerned about profanity, I suggest you delete the dif and then make the edit again. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:I understand your point of view, but he broke the rules. Profanity calls for immediate deletion. And thank you for the suggestion. I am going to fix that now. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::David was exactly right to block this user. The profanity was bad and it was placed in a comment for everyone to see. We're not going to cheapen this website with vulgarity and obscenity. The [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] say that can result in immediate blocking, and in this case the blocking is precisely what I would have done.

::Disagreements are allowed and encouraged. Vulgarity or obscenity results in immediate blocking, particularly when it is in an entry name, revision comment, or user id. This is a consistently applied rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Also be aware that Willy on Wheels is the name of a famous vandal on Wikipedia. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Thank you MountainDew. If I didn't feel justified in blocking him before (which I did), then I do now...--[[User:David R|David R]] 23:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: You can say that again, David. Thanks much for that insight, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Willy on Wheels' recent edits don't look like vandalism, but vulgarity in an edit remark is not a good sign.

:::: But, for background, Willy on Wheels was indeed a famous vandal on Wikipedia, so much so that the use of such a user name seems ''very'' provocative to me. However, Willy on Wheels m.o. was a "move vandal." ''Dwight D. Eisenhower'' would become ''Dwight D. Eisenhower on wheels,'' ''Molybdenum'' would become ''Molybdenum on wheels,'' and so forth. He specialized in moving as many article as he could as fast as possible. This is obviously someone different, but he should certainly be asked about his choice of user name. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::: P. S. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]], you and I are used to the Wikipedia environment, in which (although nobody around here believes it) things like protecting pages and blocking users are taken as very serious business, and are done with the context of rather strict rules which sysops (usually!) follow. It makes being a sysop rather laborious, in fact. It's possible that Conservapedia is right to be less formal.

:::: But I would caution about one thing. Since it is still possible for a blocked user to start a new account, as far as I know, when blocking a user you must not think that you've created an impenetrable shield, but that you are trying to get the user to modify his or her behavior by using negative reinforcement (what they call "a timeout" in the parenting books). Blocks might as well be rather short. They should be long enough for the user to realize that they've been blocked, and to be a little shocked by it. A reasonable user who's been blocked will react by being more careful about their edit comments in future, for example.

:::: But any seriously hostile user will just create a new account and start over. (It's always interesting to try to judge whether new users are re-creations of blocked user by observing their editing styles. It's never possible for an ordinary user to do more than guess at this, of course). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::: P. P. S. Another problem with blocking is that it is reasonably effective on ''regular editors,'' who have been around for a while and think of their usernames as a kind of identity. If I were blocked on Wikipedia for a day, I'd wait it out, because I ''like'' my user name, there are people who know me under my user name, I'm (foolishly and vainly) proud of having a large number of edits under that name, and of forth. I could create a new account under a new name, but it (sob) just wouldn't be ''me.'' This probably applies to most people whose usernames are variants of their real name.

:::: But a vandal, who just created the account a few days ago, isn't going to care that much.

:::: Think "conversion, not coercion." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, Dpbsmith, the user's IP address is blocked from entering the website at all. Believe me, I already got blocked once :). The only way for the user to get back in would be for him to change his IP address, which I believe ''is'' possible. But it takes some knowledge and persistence. --[[User:David R|David R]] 09:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)

: Actually, it is pretty trivial to change one's IP address. For example, if one is using AOL then the IP address changes almost constantly. Similarly, for almost any dial-up service all you need to do to change IP addresses is hang up and redial. Blocking an IP address does very little. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::Oh. I'm sorry. I'm not too familiar with AOL(except for all those trial CD's they send) or dial-up. I do know that with IE and some other browsers, you must go to the IP Configuration screen at computer start-up. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==Blocks==

:::Good block, David. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::No problem. Two weeks enough? I don't know if he'll be back to help or hurt. I can always increase it. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Two weeks sounds good in borderline cases, as in that case. I often put in an infinite block if the person is directly harmful to the site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Bonobos ==

I was in the process of expanding and cleaning the language of that up. I'd appreciate if you would undelete it for me to work on. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, no problem. Just can't leave that kind of stuff up for too long. Good looking out, Joshua. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:38, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: Thanks, I've cleaned it up, expanded it and taken out the more blunt language. Let me know how it is.

:Its definitely a cleaner article. Thank you very much. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Could you remove the pluralization on the word female in that article? My computer is going crazy with "forbidden words". --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Actually, I changed it in a slightly different fashion to just "females" since I think it is clear what types of females one is talking about. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::Ok, that makes sense. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::: And you are fine with how I hanlded the sexuality issue? (I have to say, I don't know why the original editor put in the details other than to be annoying or test our limits). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:19, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::::Yes, it was improved dramatically. Thank you. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Image resizing ==

In reference to my new image file on musical notes: ''Please'' resize it if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, the software blew up--and when I put an internal link into the article, telling it to scale the image down, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in [[CreationWiki]]. When I do, the software blows up, saying that "no such file or directory" exists. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then ''show me how'' for future reference.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Bill Clinton ==

What happened is Dprbsmith moved the Clinton page back to where it was originally. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Back to Bill Clinton? I was unaware that it had ever been there before. Thank you. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Great work! ==

Great effort, David, with your entry on [[Alvin York]]!!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Oh thanks. I had to write an informational essay about him in another history class and I thought it would be good to put it on the site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Tehran ==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tehran&diff=19461&oldid=19458 this]? Would you like to argue that Mahmoud was not the former mayor of Tehran, and is not the current president of Iran? It's not misinformation. Ask for a source, I'd be glad to give it to you. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

No, I was mistaken. I did not see that you had edited it correctly. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I got the source anyways, it's on there now, feel free to critique. I'm new to Conservapedia, and am still figuring out the fine differences between it and Wikipedia. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Delete and block ==

I presume you will want to delete [[Cretinism]] and warn or block the user who made it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Wow...yeah I was just about to delete the redirect. But I don't this blocking the user for the entry is justifiable in this case. His entry was a thoughtful redirect for the incompetent speller :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: You may want to look up what cretinism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Yeah...I guess I should have. Blocking was definitely the right choice. Sorry about that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==On my talk page==
Explain what you believe is not factual when accusing someone of not adding factual information. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]]

: What ''is'' factual about what was posted [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Democratic Party+

At least please do some serious work yourself on the Democratic Party entry. This site is so embarrassingly uneducated. Why not produce something you can be proud of? [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]

:While the article could use some work - articles always need work; they are never perfect - it did not need the "work" you suggested. As for this site, it is not uneducated nor embarrassing. In fact, I am positive that this project will look great on my college transcript.

From [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]: seriously, it depends on what you intend to do after college. Do think seriously and ask for good advice from a *range* of people about what your having participated in this site's effort may signal to others.

:Actually, the mere fact that I participated in making this site is enough. My involvement has nothing to do with the material or the stance of this site. How many students have you heard of making an online encyclopedia? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I am very proud of this site. I did not think it would turn out as great as it has. As for contributing any more material to the article, I am afraid I can't - need to be up early for my SATs tomorrow! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. Sign your posts please. It makes it so much easier to respond.

Please also explain your objections to my edits on the Democratic Party entry. What constituted "vandalism" in my edits?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]

You inserted your own biased comments and advertized a site that provided nothing to the article. There you go - my explanation. Enjoy. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him ==

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:31, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I told you, I can't. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. Christian Concern's edits may have been troublesome, but expletiveSaddams were directly harmful to the site. They should be the first priority. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== expletivesaddaam question ==

Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? I need to look at his edits and then decide if to ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:His '''name''' is the problem. Please assume your duties as a Sysop and block him. Do that first. Then revert his edits. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Why are you asking me to ban someone and then.... ==

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then not giving me the information I need in order to ban him. Unless you tell me an article he edited I cannot find him to ban him. 22:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:Are you so dense??? His name contains a curse word! He needs to be blocked. But this user sounds like he regrets using the name, so block him but uncheck the box underneath to allow account recreation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

PS go to Full Metal Jackets talk page, look at history, proceed from there

== I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please ==

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please next time give me an article the person edited so I can find the person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:43, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

If you told me that at the beginning, I would have gladly given you the information. His edit ''was'' on the recent edits page... --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:44, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Why did... ==

Why did you erase my edits and remove some characters from the [[Talk:Main_Page]] page? Please explain...? [[User:GofG|GofG]] 23:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, because they did have any value as the page issue had been taken care of. Plus they just added the unneeded vulgarity where it could not "be lost in the recent history". It was nothing personal at all. Most of your edits have been very valuable. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:20, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Religions: They're not ALL True! ==

It says right on the front page: "
:Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America."

So why did you edit the [[religion]] page to lump Christianity in with the FALSE religions? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:03, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I was wondering who was asking me this. I did not say they were all true. I am a Christian. I have no reason to say that Christianity isn't true. I believe it is true. But we cannot say that here. It is just too biased. Take for contrast, wikipedia saying that secularism is the only true religion. That would never work. But they hint through every other article that secularism and a god-less humanity is the true religion. Likewise, instead of explicitly stating Christianity is the only true religion, we must hint that it is though our own articles. Your version would instantly turn away anyone from another religion. Christianity should not alienate other human beings. They need this encyclopedia more than we do. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Uh huh. And the NEXT thing you'e going to do is let all the liberals and atheists and whatnot start posting here, so this place can become "wikipedia junior"? If so, we might as well just post there and not waste our time!
THE TRUTH DOES NOT HAVE A "BIAS"! It sounds like you're ASHAMED of Jesus! --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:13, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Tree ==

Not to be rude, but I honestly can not tell whether [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Is_it_wrong_to_have_a_Christmas_tree%3F&diff=23929&oldid=23927 this] was serious or sarcastic. Could you tell me? After all, text doesn't convey emotion or voice :D. Sorry, --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:04, 11 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure, either. That's the trouble with debates over the internet. I think David is saying that the tree is a distraction to the faith. The tree is not a religious symbol.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 11 March 2007 (EST)

User talk:David R

2007-03-11T05:03:41Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Religions: They're not ALL True! */ (Sorry, forgot to sign it.)

User talk:David R

2007-03-11T05:03:08Z

Fullmetajacket: Religions: They're not ALL True!

Talk:Religion

2007-03-11T04:46:33Z

Fullmetajacket: ???

David R: This site is SUPPOSED to be for Conservatives and Christians (says so right on the front page). Why are you lumping the One True Faith in with all the false religions? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 23:46, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Religion

2007-03-11T04:04:27Z

Fullmetajacket: Added a list of some religions, for future linkage.

A system of beliefs about the supernatural.

----

== True Religions ==

* [[Christianity]]

== False Religions ==

* [[Islam]]
* [[Judaism]] ''(It used to be True, before Jesus arrived.)''
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Wicca]]
* The [[Heaven's Gate]] [[cult]]
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Rastafarianism]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[SubGeniism]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]
* [[Animism]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Jenovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Pastafarianism]] ''(A [[joke religion]])''

Christianity

2007-03-11T03:50:30Z

Fullmetajacket:

'''Christianity''' is a [[religion]] that follows the teachings of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]], as described in the books of the [[New Testament]]. It is currently the world's largest religion, with over two billion members. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Christian apologetics]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Islam]]

==References==
<references/>

Christianity

2007-03-11T03:50:09Z

Fullmetajacket: /* See also */

'''Christianity''' is a religion that follows the teachings of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]], as described in the books of the [[New Testament]]. It is currently the world's largest religion, with over two billion members. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Christian apologetics]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Islam]]

==References==
<references/>

Animism

2007-03-11T03:42:32Z

Fullmetajacket: 'was' when?

Animism is the belief that all things in creation have a spirit and the worship of those spirits. Animism was the primary religion of [[Africa]] and the [[Native Americans]] before their [[conversion]] to [[Christianity]], [[Catholicism]] and/or [[Islam]].

Vitamin

2007-03-11T03:38:03Z

Fullmetajacket: Slightly more accurate description, but biology isn't my field.

A chemical substance found in food essential for the normal working of the human body, beyond providing dietary calories.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Vitamin

2007-03-11T03:36:52Z

Fullmetajacket: Forgot timestamp.

Oxygen is 'vital to the working of the human body', but it isn't a 'vitamin'. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 22:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Vitamin

2007-03-11T03:36:31Z

Fullmetajacket: Very incomplete definition.

Oxygen is 'vital to the working of the human body', but it isn't a 'vitamin'.

User talk:Fullmetajacket

2007-03-11T03:34:30Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? */

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-03-11T03:33:43Z

Fullmetajacket: /* yes */

== yes ==

----

Yes!!!

'''Comment'''--- If you would please explain your opinion.(This ''is'' supposed to be a ''debate'' topic and one finds it just a touch hard to debate a simple "Yes")

It MUST be possible. Otherwise, why would the President have invaded? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST) (Ah, so that's how it works!)

== No ==

----

== Comment ==
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.''

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Hitler Youth

2007-03-11T03:29:44Z

Fullmetajacket: Added a few links.

The Hitler Youth organization was founded by [[Adolf Hitler]], the dictator of [[Germany]], in 1933. It was designed to train young men to be come [[nazi|Nazis]]. There was also another organization called the [[League of German Girls]] which trained young women in domestic duties and motherhood.

User talk:Fullmetajacket

2007-03-11T03:28:34Z

Fullmetajacket:

how do I change my username?

I haven't the faintest idea, sorry. Make a new account?

User talk:FuckSaddam

2007-03-11T03:23:31Z

Fullmetajacket: Isn't this username a trifle offensive?

Isn't this name a trifle offensive?

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-03-11T03:21:34Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Yes: */

?????

Could you please give me an example of their liberal bias? I use Wikipedia all the time and it's always a reliable and in-depth encyclopedia.

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

== Yes: ==

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

== No. Not always: ==

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? Junk. Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

Hippies

2007-03-11T03:18:08Z

Fullmetajacket: Still the biggest threat facing America today.

A subculture that was briefly popular in the late 1960s, notable for its' adherents' horrible music, traitorous opposal to the [[Vietnam War]], [[communist]] political views, massive [[drug]]-use, and poor hygiene.

Conversion

2007-03-11T03:12:08Z

Fullmetajacket: Fixed a few typos, added links.

Conversion is the alchemic process of transmuting one substance into another. or, as interpreted by [[Jesse Sump]]... the vessel by which [[Gnosticism]] survived its various purges into the [[Renaissance]].

Talk:Thigmotropism

2007-03-11T03:07:52Z

Fullmetajacket:

This entry for thigmotropism doesn't seem to make any sense. According to [http://www.answers.com/thigmotropism&r=67] thigmotropism is a change in growth direction of a living organism due to contact with a solid object.

It doesn't make any sense, period. It needs some context.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2007-03-11T03:02:04Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Presidential Legacy */

[[Image:Gorbachev reagan bush.gif|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004) was the fortieth President of the United States from 1981 to 1989, following Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding Republican [[George H. W. Bush]]. Considered by some conservatives to be the greatest American President, Ronald Reagan is often credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes (despite supporting major tax increases in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Highway Revenue Act)[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp], promoting a free economy, and staunchly opposing socialism and communism. Perhaps most controversially, Reagan is often credited by conservatives for ending the Cold War in victory for the United States. Some historians (such as Tony Judt in ''Postwar'') credit Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev or Pope John Paul II[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]. Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of communism. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government, although during his terms in office the government size and budget both increased rather than decreasing. During his terms in office, he faced a divided government split between Republican and Democratic control. Reagan also served two terms as governor of [[California]] from 1967–1975. He is often referred to as "The Great Communicator".

In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, he publicly uttered the words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" in a speech in West Berlin. However, critics noted that Gorbachev, as the leader of the Soviet Union, did not actually have the final say in the status of the Berlin Wall, since it was located entirely on the territory of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), and thus at the discretion of East German party leader Erich Honecker, who stubbornly resisted Gorbachev's exhortations for reform. He also introduced the idea of "Reaganomics" in which the rich would spend money which would trickle down to the poor. In the 1980 Republican primary debates, George H.W. Bush, later Reagan's running mate and successor as president, criticized Reagan's "trickle-down" policies as "voodoo economics."

==Early Life==
Reagan was raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. He became a radio sports announcer after graduation, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to ever lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. (It should be noted that Reagan considered himself a liberal during the early parts of his life). Reagan wanted to enlist in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough. Instead, he heroically used his acting skills to make military training films <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref>.

==Presidential Legacy==
Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense system has ever been tested successfully. While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount.

==Miscellaneous Facts==
Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.

Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref>.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California <ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref>.

Reagan is also the only president ever to have starred in a film co-starring a chimpanzee, "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951).

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-03-11T02:33:26Z

Fullmetajacket: /* Theory 2 */

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-03-11T02:29:21Z

Fullmetajacket: /* White-hole Cosmology */

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref>

== References ==
<references/>