Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God

2007-03-22T14:28:47Z

NukNuk: /* Free Will? */

This is about language and it's proper usage. I created an article about Natural Disasters saying:

'Natural disaster is an atheist term for an Act of God. The term describes Acts of God as something that happens 'naturally' not by the will of our creator and thereby denies the influence of our own behavior.'

It was instantly replaced by this stuff:

'A natural disaster is a disaster caused by natural forces, as in, a volcano, or a hurricane.
Some simply call a "natural disaster" an Act of God [1].'

I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A bias against logical errors is not a liberal bias. It's a factual bias as you can see[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Natural_disaster|here].

::So where is the 'logical error'? And by the way: it's good form to sign your post.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So your saying that when a sunami hits and kills hundreds of thousands of people, it's because your " creator" caused it, an " Act of God ". I guess that would make your creator the biggest mass and serial murder in history, given all the acts of god that have killed millions of people.

::::Dear 'Anonymus': That's what you make of it. The flood happened and god had no doubts whether people were 'good' od 'bad'. Why is it so hard to understand?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

so what your saying everyone killed was killed because they were " bad" ? What a warped concept.

==From the Natural Disaster Talk Page==

WOW. Um, I know we got a bias an all, but I think this is a bit much. I don't think God slings tornadoes around when he gets peeved.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Not sure how you could know that, but okay. If everything is from God, how can it be a "Natural" disaster. As a young Christian, taking the language back is very important to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Your version of the article is a disgrace. It's not 'simply called' act of god. That's the ver nature of 'natural disasters'.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? [[User:What|What]]
::I just don't think that God is such an immanent being that everything that happens can be attributed to him. I really doubt that God himself is personally responsible for every natural disaster that occurs and they are all conscious decisions that he makes. Rather, I believe they are a part of the mechanics that control how the world in which God made functions.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Truly our God is an awesome God. If HE chooses to hurl tornadoes, HE surely can. When we look past HIS works, like Hurricane Katrina and that monsoon in Sri Lanka, we don't learn from HIM. Calling something a "Natural Disaster" takes away the force of GOD's perfect love.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::God created systems that do the work for him, if you believe in him. Saying he does everything directly is like saying the President makes your plumbing work.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
the president does make my plumbing work, everytime he gives one of his smirky speeches I'm off to the bathroom to throw up.
::::God's perfect love is to kill thousands of people with a super storm? I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to that belief.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::By that logic, GOD is a so-called natural disaster. I don't think you should say that. Youm could be banned.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::So you also don't 'buy' Noah? I thought it's a general agreement here to take the bible literally? Or am I mistaken?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What the...!? Flesh that out so it makes sense. Aaaaand go! Also don't threaten me.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't threatening, or didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. But if everything comes from GOD, then it must be evidence of HIS perfect love. I know in my heart that even the soldiers who die in Iraq, fighting the muslims, are part of HIS ultimate plan. A natural disaster must be an act of GOD--a hurricane, a tornado, dinosaurs, wars and blessings. It is all part of the plan. Saying anything is natural is like going into a parking lot full of shopping carts and saying they must have gotten there by chance. Yes, at that particular second they are, but they were created by people, and thus by GOD so their placement is part of GOD's perfect will. We Christians must retalliate when so-called atheists and others try to steal the language from us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First of all, the US is fighting the Iraqi insurgents. NOT the Muslims. There's a biiiiiig difference. You should look up the distinction somewhere else, perhaps on [www.wikipedia.com|Wikipedia]? Second of all, again, the distinction is between the original cause and the ultimate cause. God, to you, is the original cause, but he is not the ultimate cause, even if disasters are in his plan. Again, it's like saying the President makes your water run.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Never mind that your interpretation of "God's Will" basically absolves anyone of taking repsonsibility for their actions. "Sure I punched that guy in the face and took his car. But it's all part of God's plan." --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Would GOD allow it otherwise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So if you do poorly on your homework, not your fault. Good point, Dave.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The only problem is your beliefs rely on God to be an immanent being. What if I believe God to be a transcendent being?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the best example I can think of right now. Lets say I design a computer program to create and manage a society of people, ala simcity. In the background of this program, I have it set to roll a set of ten dice every second. Each time the program rolls ten dice of the same number, the program randomly selects 2 coordinates on the map. At one coordinate, the computer creates a tornado, which follows a straight path to the other coordinate, at which point, it disappears. Now, I have created the system in question. However, the individual tornado itself is not direct action on my part, but rather a natural phenomenon of the system that I created. If I were to die while the computer system was running, it would still have tornadoes, despite my not being alive anymore. Thats basically how I think the world functions. God made it, then sat back and watched.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should he just sit back and watch? While your scenario is possible (technically) it's not convincing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why else? Too see what they create?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows." (Mark 13:5-8)
:::People are misbehaving and God is punishing them. It is happening now.
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please Stop the Ridicule==
I did not come here to debate and be ridiculed for my belief. Please do not ridicule Christians with stronger faith than some others. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't help debating you. It's all part of God's Will...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Showing you logical fallacies is no insulting you. It's a common problem that even the admins of this site don't understand.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Claiming 'stronger faith than some others' could itself be considered attacking the belief of those others. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::So claiming a strong faith attacks others, or threatens them? I thought Conservapedia was a place for Christians to come and be welcomed, not derided for their faith. I don't have time to create logical enthymemes for you, but GOD is the reason for everything, noy just what some people want HIM to promote. Some people use GOD like a slogan to be hayled out hen they see fit. I think GOD has a place in everyting around us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You didn't just claim a strong faith, you claimed that it was stronger than others. The obvious implication was that those others are those Christians who happen to disagree with you on this point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Still: God caused the great flood, why shouldn't he cause a hurrican?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am unconvinced by angry tirades. Only logic works well.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I wasn't the one threatening you. Concerning logic: What about the flood? You never answered that one.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "tirade" thing was directed at Flippin, not you, Sherm, sorry for the confusion. But, I would say that he didn't cause the flood, but that's because I'm not a biblical literalist, and I don't think that Noah actually saved all life on Earth. But, if you believe in God, certainly some acts are acts of God. But it goes too far to say that everything happening in the world is an act of God. Certainly they're in accord with his plan, but not directly caused.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Flippin|Flippin]], please note that [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] tends to have "a chip on his shoulder" and is ready to argue (on ALL points). And [[User:AmesG|AmesG]], Gee, give us all a break, dude. (Though I '''did''' like the analogy of the President being my plumber, [turn on the light switch to get the hot water on], though I'd rather him do the gardening.) ANYWAY...

::::"Stuff happens," to paraphrase the vulgar bumper-sticker: We don't know if there even is a "why" when stuff happens; we can know what leads ''up'' to stuff happening, we can see inside tornadoes and project with a fair degree of accuracy where they're going to go next but the philosophical '''reasons why''' tornadoes happen will be argued until the end of time.

::::I believe it error to conclude that just because we can know what happens to create a tornado we can dispense with God and any plan He might have with regard to that tornado.

::::MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::HAHA! Thanks, Cracker? I'll give it a break when I get a break though ;-). But note that I concede that a divine plan naturally follows, but ultimate causation does not. Hey, I need something to do in Admin.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting, simcity works as a perfect way to illustrate this. In the game, by default, disasters occur at random. However, the game allows you to turn disasters off or you can make disasters happen at will. Maybe thats how God is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:God <3 Arcologies.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Free Will==

My problem is this. If God is immanent like Flip believes him to be, then he has a hand in everything we do. Thus, we do not have free will, because everything we do is an Act of God. If we don't have free will, then what is the point of our existence? Why did God create us if not to see what would happen if you gave a creation free will?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:This means solve the problems of hundreds of years of philosophy. We have proof in the bible that god interfers with life on earth. The question here is how far his influence reaches.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::ABSOLUTELY! Thank you sherm [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::If there's a legitimate question on that point, then it's hardly an atheist term, is it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can understand God interfering to guide the course of humanity. I can also see him interfering to correct grave injustices. But I can't seem him interfering in the everyday lives of humanity. Also, if you subscribe to Judaism, they believe that after the second destruction of the Temple, God left the earth and became a transcendent being, rather than an immanent one.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If there is no free will how can we sin?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::My point exactly, which in my opinion refutes, to an extent, God's immanence. God cannot be immanent to the point where he controls humans' individual actions, or thus we cannot sin(unless of course God willing a human being to do something that is sinful still counts as a sin, which is I guess possible, but highly unfair and illogical)--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Exactly. By assigning everything to the Will of God, personal responsibility is removed. Consequences are removed. All choices, no matter how wrong or how damaging to others, are acceptable since they are the Will of God. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my world to be able to look at a guy like Ted Bundy or the 9/11 bombers and know that they are NOT part of what God wants from us.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Who called this a 'legitimate' question? It's like you are saying: There is free will and because of that god has no way to act? The opposite is true: Because humans have a free will they tend to sin and because of that god needs to act like he did with the flood.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::You misunderstand, we're not saying God has no way to act because of free will, we're saying that because of free will, God must be limited in his ability to act, otherwise humans will be incapable of sin, when in reality we obviously are.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So you acknowledge limits to Gods' control and we just differ on where to draw the line.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Where do I say that??? I believe in gods ultimate power. --[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Someone else take this one.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Can we all agree that this should be a debate topic again and not an article?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Free Will?==

How can a "free will" exist? Even to ask the question implies that one has the necessary capability to understand their life apart from GOD. In reality, the world the LORD lives in, there is no life without HIM. I am not saying this because I want people to accept JESUS CHRIST as their personal SAVIOUR, but because, like smoking (where everybody eventually quits) everybody eventually accepts the LORD. To even think that we meager simpletons can make a decision without HIM is patently false. This applies to this idea of so-called "natural disasters." If the LORD didn't want us to experience grief, HE wouldn't have created it. Like a child who needs a spanking, sometimes the LORD must punish us. The Noachian Flood is a perfect example of this. The LORD chose to destroy most of the world so it could be re-born. Hurricane Katrina is the same thing. Those who became wikcked--through act or deed--were smited and punished for their sins. How could it be any other way? And to say the LORD made the program and sat back to watch it work is like saying I have a child I put him in the yard to see if he lives. No, my friends, there is no "free will." There is only a choice for those who want to spend eternity with the ONE TRUE GOD, and those who don't. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Uhm, wait a second. That means the only free decision in my whole life is to believe in "the LORD" or not to believe in him? If I choose to believe I don't need a free will anymore because "the LORD" takes over my mind or something like that? That's too simple, isn't it? I don't believe in God but even if I did, I wouldn't want to make him responsible for my actions. .
By the way - who can explain the correlation between "smoking" and "accepting the Lord" to me? I just don't get it. --[[User:NukNuk|NukNuk]] 10:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God

2007-03-22T14:28:07Z

NukNuk: /* Free Will? */

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-22T01:53:29Z

NukNuk:

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"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. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event 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." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event 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." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop

::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.

:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about? [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationist Scientists Perspective" ==

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
be replaced with this sentence:
: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>
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== The DNA-argument ==

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"!
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-22T01:51:56Z

NukNuk: /* Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material */

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-22T01:50:27Z

NukNuk:

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"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. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event 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." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event 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." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop

::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.

:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about? [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationist Scientists Perspective" ==

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
be replaced with this sentence:
: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>
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"!
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?