Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Massachusetts

2007-03-16T08:51:28Z

Realitycheck:

This is a highly biased article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 06:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, this should be interesting to watch. Gay marriage versus the Spirit of '76.

::But... Massachusetts is the ''Cradle of Liberty'' so it's ''good!"
::But... Massachusetts is ''liberal'' so it's ''bad!''
::But... Massachusetts is the ''Cradle of Liberty'' so it's ''good!"
::But... Massachusetts is ''liberal'' so it's ''bad!''
:::(head explodes)
:::: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I can't beleive how quickly this article manages to mention liberals and same-sex marriages. This is pure propaganda. Give the state some credit and talk about it's identity not its politics as the realm of opinion is not valid in an encyclopedia. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 04:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Massachusetts

2007-03-16T08:51:13Z

Realitycheck:

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-14T11:15:06Z

Realitycheck: /* No: */

== No ==
Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]

---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-03-14T11:14:47Z

Realitycheck: /* No: */

== No ==
Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]

---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly.

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Realitycheck

2007-03-14T08:28:17Z

Realitycheck: /* Using British/Australian spellings */

I am going to lift your block for obscenity, but will be required to reinstate it if you post any more inappropriate material. Please read our [[The_Conservapedia_Commandments|rules]]: this is a clean site. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I have replied on your user page. I consider your block to be offensive, as there was as far as I could tell nothing at all wrong with my article additions. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 01:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Using British/Australian spellings==

Your changing of the American "standardized" spelling to the British/Australian "standardised" is explicitly forbidden under the Conservapedia Commandments, and will result in a block if you continue to make that edit. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 04:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Oh sorry, my ignorance... wait a second. Or is it really?

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T08:21:41Z

Realitycheck:

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardised tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

The law has been shown to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student.

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T08:13:24Z

Realitycheck:

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T08:01:02Z

Realitycheck:

Massachusetts

2007-03-14T07:54:16Z

Realitycheck:

'''Massachusetts''' is a state in the [[United States]] known for [[liberal]] politics, to the point that the term [[Massachusetts Liberal]] is in regular use by the media. Its senators are two of the most liberal men in the Senate: [[John Kerry]] (who unsuccessfully ran for [[President]] in 2004) and [[Ted Kennedy]]. Massachussetts is infamous for its legalisation of [[same-sex marriage]].

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-14T07:34:47Z

Realitycheck: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-14T07:28:27Z

Realitycheck: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

San Francisco

2007-03-14T07:27:04Z

Realitycheck:

'''San Francisco''' is a city in [[California]]. It has a higher proportion of [[homosexual]]s than any other city in the [[United States]], and in 2004, its mayor, [[Gavin Newsom]], attempted to perform [[same-sex marriage]]s despite the practice being explicitly illegal under California law. Not surprisingly, the marriages were nullified by the courts shortly thereafter.

Whale

2007-03-14T07:19:11Z

Realitycheck:

A whale (cetacean) is a massive mammal that lives in the ocean. It relies on fresh air just like other mammals, and unlike fish. The whale is warm-blooded like animals, and unlike fish. But whales have many extraordinary features that are ''not like'' other mammals, including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the nursing calves are somehow able to avoid taking in saltwater while nursing

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

The [[Public Broadcasting Service]], known for airing pro-evolution shows, admitted, "The evolution of whales has been a mystery."<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html</ref> This is largely inconclusive however as we do not understand much about whales, especially the giants of the ocean [[Blue Whales]] for which scientists have not yet discovered where they travel to breed.

One prominent story about a whale is that of Jonas:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - Matthew 12:40.

Another prominent story about a whale is that of the great white whale Moby Dick, popularised as a fictional character in an adventure story.
== References ==

<references/>

Blue Whales

2007-03-14T07:17:15Z

Realitycheck:

The Largest living animal on earth, which lives in the largest ecosystem of our planet the ocean.

Whale

2007-03-14T07:16:05Z

Realitycheck:

Talk:Math contests

2007-03-14T04:30:32Z

Realitycheck:

Shouldn't this be a more international perspective upon the topic? So far I see only American references. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:25:04Z

Realitycheck:

I think you might want to take some of the more... opinionated stuff off of your userpage... it's blatantly offensive for no reason. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Cranky Joe, your page sounded like a liberal's caricature of conservatives. I hope I'm wrong and, if so, welcome. But if I'm right, be sure to look at the statutes at the top of the [[Main_Page]] before you make edits here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I take offense at that. Just because I'm not one of today's idealistic "moderates" or "bipartisans" you hear about in the liberal media doesn't mean that I'm not %110 purebread genuine conservative, and my rights to free speech will not be supressed just because some find me too "radical". --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Besides, I even wrote a article: [[Apple pie]]. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: Abide by our [[rules]], please. Free speech here is limited by those rules. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought this was a wiki for promoting conservative agenda, not one for "facts". Well, scientists will tell you that a round earth and the theory of evolution are "facts". I do not think that I have vandalized anything, nor put inapropriate or obscene content here. If I come across as a bit brash, it's just my nature; I do not mean to offend. We are, after all, all Christian brothers. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]]'s free speech seems limited to his user page, which I believe is not against the rules. "6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." Is it just me or has he done nothing wrong? I certainly don't believe so as his user page is not an encyclopedia entry and accurately portrays his views so that others may clearly understand his perspective. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I believe that my edits to the article about the patriot [[Richard Nixon]] (and possibly my edits to [[Apple pie]], an article I wrote by myself) which are controvercial here. Although I will leave if my own home page comes under attack. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well I sincerely hope that you user page does not come under attack as that would be consider a clear act of censorship. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 00:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Cranky Joe

2007-03-14T04:21:00Z

Realitycheck:

Capital

2007-03-14T04:11:56Z

Realitycheck:

"Capital" consists of money or other assets that can be exchanged for goods or services. It is the basis for [[capitalism]].

The term "capital" has a specialised meaning in accounting, and a broader meaning in economics.

In accounting, "capital" the net worth or stockholders' equity in a company.

In economics, "capital goods" includes anything used to produce goods, including machines, tools and factories.

[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-14T04:05:42Z

Realitycheck:

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)

::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)

==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)

Pineapple

2007-03-14T03:56:32Z

Realitycheck:

A Pineapple is a tropical fruit with a tough prickly exterior and a serrated 'crown' of leaves. The interior of a Pineapple is bright yellow and when ripe is full of natural sugars which afford it a sweet taste.

Pineapple

2007-03-14T03:56:07Z

Realitycheck: edited to be more objective and factual, the information regarding creationsim was irrelevant here and more appropriately should be referenced in another topic

A Pineapple is a tropical fruit with a tough prickly exterior and a serrated 'crown' of leaves. The interior of a Pineapple is bright yellow when ripe is full of natural sugars which afford it a sweet taste.

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-14T03:49:31Z

Realitycheck:

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).

:::::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)

::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)

==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)

Printing Press

2007-03-14T03:40:28Z

Realitycheck:

Invented by [[Johann Gutenberg]] in 1455, it created a more rapid flow of information that greatly influenced the [[Renaissance]]. The [[Bible]] was the first book ever printed. The widespread use of printing presses has declined in recent years, as technological improvements have led to faster methods of printing such as web offset and laser printing.

Printing presses, such as invented by Gutenberg have gained popularity in certain areas such as art, due to the simplicity of the process and limited technological complexity. Printing presses have changed dramatically in recent times to adapt to the need for printed packaging and advertising which often benefits from the simplicity of pressing when used on curved or irregular surfaces. Some examples of such surfaces / mediums include glass and plastic bottles, toys, appliances and many other consumer goods.

Printing Press

2007-03-14T03:39:21Z

Realitycheck:

Invented by [[Johann Gutenberg]] in 1455, it created a more rapid flow of information that greatly influenced the [[Renaissance]]. The [[Bible]] was the first book ever printed. The widespread use of printing presses has declined in recent years, as technological improvements have led to faster methods of printing such as web offset and laser printing. Lithographic printing presses, such as invented by Gutenberg have gained popularity in certain areas such as art, due to the simplicity of the process and limited technological complexity. Printing presses have changed dramatically in recent times to adapt to the need for printed packaging and advertising which often benefits from the simplicity of pressing when used on curved or irregular surfaces. Some examples of such surfaces / mediums include glass and plastic bottles, toys, appliances and many other consumer goods.

Conservapedia:Ask questions

2007-03-14T03:28:10Z

Realitycheck: /* Scope */

Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here.

== Bias ==

If wikipedia is "liberal biased" I assume it would be because that's the way the world is biased because the people who write for it are not censored unless it is blatantly wrong. I came to this site and thought that as the homepage calls it "more accurate" info. Unfortunately, I seemed to have stumbled on less accurate information. Note, that some articles leave out anything that doesn't have to do with a specific biased message. (Example: the abortion article doesn't even explain what it is, just why it's bad.)

My real question is, why will this be deleted, instead of talked about and addressed on your site?

:Users are probably less likely to get blocked here than on Wikipedia. But as to you central claim, bias arises most easily in unrestrained groups of people, like gangs, mobs and political parties. We have a set of simple, clear rules to keep us from ending up like Wikipedia. Check out our list of [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Thanks and hope you can contribute. By the way, the abortion page does define what it is, though I expect everyone knows that already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not censored? Please see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight&diff=prev&oldid=85523670#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless received a community ban so the pejoratives aimed at Paul Weyrich will stick. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

American spelling is descended from illiterates who left england/europe to colonise the 'new world'. E.g. Favor should be spelled Favour, nite should be spelled Night. After all the language is English and therefore the spellings should be English. Yet another example of American terretorialism and intolerance - if it 'aint American it's bad, if it 'aint Christian - it's bad. your claim that the abortion issue is biased on Wikipedia is just a joke. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, made the following statements.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

There are a multitude of similar statements, Religion never was, nor was meant to be enshrined in law. He believed in a society where Government and Religion were a seperate. If Christian values are enforced by law - then surely when you get to heaven, you will be judged on deeds that you committed voluntarily, not those you were 'told' to do. God gave man free will for a purpose, surely to not use free will and judgement is an insult to God for this gift.

By the way, I am an American Christian, not liberal nor conservative nor any other 'term' that pigeonholes someone - I am a free thinker, and use the brain that was bestowed upon me by God to question, research etc. So many of the worlds religions share the same facts/events (Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and the Torah). Maybe, these religions started out as one, but disversified/split as different sects had different beliefs. We all worship one God, just in our different way. Maybe it's time we focused on the 'true' meaning of Christ, when was the last time you invited a homeless person to share your home for a while? When was the last time you went out looking for a drug-user to help? How many times have you looked with disdain upon someone because they 'were'nt Christian'? Christ deliberately whould seek out those at the bottom, to help and nurture them - when was the last time, as a Christian, you did that? I have done these things, and continue to do so, I don't preach, proletize or lecture, I help - surely a better way of spreading gods word than empty talk and posturing.

I fully expect this post to be deleted, after all, it saddens me to say our once great Country had become so intolerant and abusive of anyone different. Who would be lesser in the eyes of God - The Christian who only helps/deals with/associates with Christians or the Atheist who helps people in need because they need help, regardless of their faith.

Thankyou

== Scope ==

What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::'Expanding', I'd argue 'Inflating' is a more appropriate semantic.

== Parochial language commandment ==

I just reflexively corrected (at least) 5 spelling errors in the above paragraphs.

I am curious why the American version of spellings is considered so important that it is a "commandment" rather than simply an editorial policy?

I think it is acceptable for you to pick and use any English dialect you wish as a policy, and American English is one of the more popular ones, but I think it capricious that you would ban otherwise valuable contributions from someone for using their own. Simply edit the articles for spelling as you see fit, as I did above.

[[User:Brian Wilson|Brian Wilson]] 20:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Purpose? ==

I'm genuinely confused on what the true purpose of this project is. Is the intention to actually to build an actual encyclopedia which is balanced, accurate and free of superfluous information or is the intention to "balance out" wikipedia by providing an oppositely biased viewpoint? For example, the [[Gun control]] article seems to at least be written in a bias tone and it doesn't cite any sources.
[[User:BalancedBudget|BalancedBudget]] 22:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yet another example of American terretorialism and intolerance - if it 'aint American it's bad, if it 'aint Christian - it's bad. your claim that the abortion issue is biased on Wikipedia is just a joke. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, made the following statements.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

There are a multitude of similar statements, Religion never was, nor was meant to be enshrined in law. He believed in a society where Government and Religion were a seperate. If Christian values are enforced by law - then surely when you get to heaven, you will be judged on deeds that you committed voluntarily, not those you were 'told' to do. God gave man free will for a purpose, surely to not use free will and judgement is an insult to God for this gift.

By the way, I am an American Christian, not liberal nor conservative nor any other 'term' that pigeonholes someone - I am a free thinker, and use the brain that was bestowed upon me by God to question, research etc. So many of the worlds religions share the same facts/events (Jesus is mentioned in the Bible, Koran and the Torah). Maybe, these religions started out as one, but disversified/split as different sects had different beliefs. We all worship one God, just in our different way. Maybe it's time we focused on the 'true' meaning of Christ, when was the last time you invited a homeless person to share your home for a while? When was the last time you went out looking for a drug-user to help? How many times have you looked with disdain upon someone because they 'were'nt Christian'? Christ deliberately whould seek out those at the bottom, to help and nurture them - when was the last time, as a Christian, you did that? I have done these things, and continue to do so, I don't preach, proletize or lecture, I help - surely a better way of spreading gods word than empty talk and posturing.

I fully expect this post to be deleted, after all, it saddens me to say our once great Country had become so intolerant and abusive of anyone different. Who would be lesser in the eyes of God - The Christian who only helps/deals with/associates with Christians or the Atheist who helps people in need because they need help, regardless of their faith.

Thankyou

EDT 13th March 2007 {{Unsigned|Mr flibble}}

:Where are you getting your "true meaning of [[Jesus Christ]]"? You're not getting it out of the [[Bible]]. Sure, Jesus encouraged people to be charitable. But He also said,<blockquote>The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.</blockquote><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Mark|chap=14|verses=7|version=NIV}}</ref> And BTW: the context under which He said that was that [[Judas Iscariot]] had just complained about a woman breaking a three-hundred-[[denarius|dinar]] vial of fragrant oil over Jesus' head. (Well, everyone was complaining about it, but Judas the loudest.) Judas didn't care about the poor; he just wanted to make up the deficit in the apostolic treasury, which he had emptied out earlier.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=John|chap=12|verses=6|version=NASB}}</ref>

:Now you're not the kind of embezzler that Judas was. But what shall we call one who wants to be awfully generous--with ''other people's money?'' I hardly think that Jesus would approve of that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

User talk:Realitycheck

2007-03-12T05:45:57Z

Realitycheck:

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-03-11T16:16:19Z

Realitycheck: /* Locked */

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-03-11T16:15:15Z

Realitycheck: /* Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus? */

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>