Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Barrack Obama

2007-08-02T19:56:57Z

Rolloffle:

'''Barrack Obama''' is a democratic presidential candidate for 2008. He supports issues like [[abortion|shoving scissors into the skulls of babies]], [[same-sex marriage]], wasting money on perceived [[global warming]], and [[gun control]].

Barrack Obama

2007-08-02T19:56:33Z

Rolloffle: New page: '''Barrack Obama''' is a democratic presidential candidate for 2008. He supports issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, wasting money o...

'''Barrack Obama''' is a democratic presidential candidate for 2008. He supports issues like [[shoving scissors into the skulls of babies|abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], wasting money on perceived [[global warming]], and [[stealing the guns of honest people|gun control]].

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

2007-08-02T19:53:59Z

Rolloffle:

'''Americans United for Seperation of Church and State''' is a liberal organization which asks the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of conservative Churches which it's liberal leadership disagree with.<ref>[http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr003=h1ym14y5x4.app1b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9193&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 IRS Should Investigate R.I. Catholic Diocese For Political Intervention, Says Americans United]</ref><ref>[http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9163&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=2286 IRS Should Investigate Florida Religious Group For Political Intervention, Says Americans United]</ref>

The leader of '''Americans United''' is ''Reverned'' Barry Lynn who is an ordained minister in the liberal [[United Church of Christ]]. Ironically, the [[United Church of Christ]] allowed [[Barrack Obama]] to speak at one of it's functions and was not criticized by Lynn despite his outrage at more conservative churches for similar political activities. <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56418 Activist's church mixes politics, religion]</ref>

==Refererences==
<references/>

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

2007-08-02T19:49:52Z

Rolloffle: New page: '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a liberal organization which asks the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of conservative Churches which it's liberal leadership disagree with. ==External link...

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-08-02T19:43:44Z

Rolloffle: /* Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang theory

2007-08-02T19:41:18Z

Rolloffle:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 16.5 -- although this number has changed many times throughout recent history -- billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Most [[Atheist|atheists]] believe in the Big Bang theory. There is active research and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, but atheists agree it was not a deity.

However, early resistance to the big bang model came from atheistic Soviet Russia -- as the big bang implies a beginning to the universe, this did not fit into the traditional atheistic belief that the universe had always existed, therefore not requiring a deity to create it. It was originally held as proof for theists that the universe was created by a deity -- as the big bang model implies a beginning to time and space. Theistic resistance to the big bang model came later with a rise in literalism in biblical criticism.

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Big Bang theory

2007-08-02T19:40:51Z

Rolloffle:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 16.5 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Most [[Atheist|atheists]] believe in the Big Bang theory. There is active research and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, but atheists agree it was not a deity.

However, early resistance to the big bang model came from atheistic Soviet Russia -- as the big bang implies a beginning to the universe, this did not fit into the traditional atheistic belief that the universe had always existed, therefore not requiring a deity to create it. It was originally held as proof for theists that the universe was created by a deity -- as the big bang model implies a beginning to time and space. Theistic resistance to the big bang model came later with a rise in literalism in biblical criticism.

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Prostitution

2007-08-02T19:38:59Z

Rolloffle:

'''Prostitution''' is the exchange of [[sex]]ual services for [[money]]. The [[Bible]] in general holds prostitution in contempt, but [[Jesus Christ]] showed considerably more understanding, saving Mary Magdalene{{fact}} from stoning by a mob stating, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."<ref>{{Bible ref|book=John|chap=8|verses=7|version=NIV}}</ref> Also, [[Rahab]] the [[harlot]] is redeemed for receiving two [[espionage|spies]] from [[Joshua]] and allowing them to escape their pursuers.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=James|chap=2|verses=25|version=NIV}}</ref>

In certain other [[religion]]s such as [[Hinduism]] and the historical worship of [[Aphrodite]] prostitution formed an integral part of the sacred rites.

In the [[United States]], prostitution is legal in the state of [[Nevada]] but heavily regulated, and outlawed elsewhere. [[Libertarian]]s consider prostitution to be a [[victimless crime]] on the order of using recreational [[drug]]s.

== Prostitution in the Old Testament ==

In the Law of Moses, prostitution is forbidden to the daughters of priests in the Aaronic order and it is forbidden for priests to marry a prostitute.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=21|verses=9,14|version=NIV}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:sin]]

Iced tea

2007-08-02T19:33:17Z

Rolloffle: New page: '''Iced tea''' is a beverage which is essentially tea served cold, although in many cases sweetner is added.

'''Iced tea''' is a beverage which is essentially tea served cold, although in many cases sweetner is added.

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T19:16:23Z

Rolloffle:

'''Live Prayer''' is an evangelical television program based in [[St. Petersburg|St. Petersburg, Florida]], [[Florida]]. The show airs live Monday through Friday at 1 am eastern time (10pm pacific) on CW44 in Florida. Viewers can call in to the live broadcast and ask the host Rev. Bill Keller questions about the bible and can request prayer. The Live Prayer website was created 8 years ago and the TV show was started 4 years ago, since then there have been over 1000 episodes.

Live Prayer was once on nationwide television in the United States from July to November of 2006 on the '''I''' network <ref>[http://www.liveprayer.com/press/wnd1.htm 'Dr. Phil' of prayer to hit national TV]</ref>; however, the ministry was unable to continue to pay for the expensive national air time so it is now only on local TV in Florida. Live Prayer has plans to return to national TV in the future. Live Prayer can also be watched live over the internet on the Live Prayer website. [http://www.liveprayer.com/live.cfm]

==History==
Bill Keller was born in Dayton, Ohio and went to University at Ohio State with goals of becomming a pastor; however, he got sidetracked and went into the computer business, earned millions of dollars, and eventually went to prison for 2 1/2 years for insider trading. <ref name="liberty">[http://www.liveprayer.com/press/lib.htm '''Liberty University News''': A Prodigal Son Turns Preacher]</ref>

During his stay in prison, Bill Keller decided to redidicate his life to the lord and attended [[Liberty University]] upon his release, where he earned a Doctorate of Divinity.<ref name="liberty" />

In August of 1999 he began writing the [http://www.liveprayer.com/today.cfm Live Prayer daily devotional] which he has been writting everyday since then and is now emailed to 2.4 million people around the world.<ref name="liberty" />

In March of 2003, Live Prayer expanded from an internet website to a live call-in television program which has been live almost every weeknight since then and has produced over 1000 episodes. Viewers can watch either on CW44 in Florida or over the internet at the Live Prayer website.<ref name="liberty" />

==Controversy==
Live Prayer has been embroiled in controversy many times. Bill Keller claims to deliver the truth of the bible without modification even when people may be offended.

===Mitt Romney remark===
On May 11th 2007, Bill Keller wrote in his daily devotional and said on his TV program that "a vote for Romney is a vote for satan" because Mitt Romney is a member of the Mormon [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] which he considers to be a Satanic-cult. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/02/evangelist_in_hot_water_over_romney_remark/ Evangelist in hot water over Romney remark]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053102532.html?sub=AR Separation of Church and State and Tax Exemptions]</ref> [[Barry Lynn]] of [[Americans United for Seperation of Church and State]] later wrote a letter to the IRS asking them to remove Live Prayer's tax exempt status over Bill Keller's remark. <ref>[http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07c/keller.html Televangelist Bill Keller calls Mormonism and Islam "False Religions"]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56418 '''Activist's church mixes politics, religion''' But sics IRS on Bill Keller, leading Internet evangelist]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.liveprayer.com Official 'Live Prayer' website]

[[category:television shows]]
[[category:christian media]]

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T19:05:22Z

Rolloffle: /* Mitt Romney remark */

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T19:04:55Z

Rolloffle: /* References */

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T19:04:20Z

Rolloffle: /* Mitt Romney remark */

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T19:03:48Z

Rolloffle:

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T18:54:05Z

Rolloffle:

Nero

2007-08-02T18:50:04Z

Rolloffle:

[[Image:Nero.jpg]]

Emperor of [[Rome]] AD 54-68. He persecuted countless [[Christians]] after the great fire in Rome, using them as lamp posts to light the night. He also murdered his wife and his mother, and eventually commited [[suicide]] with the help of an eager slave after the senate declared him a traitor and the mobs were coming to get him.

'''Nero''' is remembered as the emperor who 'fiddled while [[Great Fire of Rome|Rome burned]]', but this is considered to be incorrect. Contemporary sources credit Nero with trying to put out the fire. But it is true that afterwards, when he needed a scapegoat, he blamed the Christians. Moreover, after the fire he introduced laws to ensure wide streets, to prevent the spread of fires in the future.

Nero liked to consider himself a great artist and actor, and behaved in a manner totally inappropriate for his office. He also went on a tour of Greece, took part in the [[Olympics|Olympic Games]], and was awarded first place in all competitions he entered (even though, for example, he failed to complete one the races).

It is believed the [[Saint Peter|apostle Peter]] was [[martyr|martyred]] under Nero as well as the [[Saint Paul|apostle Paul]].

Nero's name in Greek and Hebrew adds up to 666, because of this Roman Catholic doctrine says that Nero will be reincarnated as the anti-Christ.

[[Category:Roman emperors]]

User talk:Learn together

2007-08-02T18:44:01Z

Rolloffle: Hey

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a <nowiki>{{speedy</nowiki> template to [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]]. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating ''any'' article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or [[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]]), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to [[Roman Empire]]! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Note that [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]] has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

== Clinton Revert.... ==

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Reverts]] --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidemyself=1&limit=600]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Job==

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus ==

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Saint Andrew ==

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)"
complain about [[Andrew]] and [[Philip]] along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Highlighting Links ==

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it.
Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or [[User_talk:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] when you wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism&diff=163608&oldid=163593 this]. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== My pleasure ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

== Edit summaries ==

I appreciate this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=170855&oldid=166181 edit], and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Compliment ==
Excellent work on the Rather article.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Global Warming, et.al. ==

You might want to consider this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==
Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on [[Justinian]]? It seems he is someone you would know much about.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sorry! ==

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with you==
The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

What's the problem with my edit to the [[atheism]] page? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - '''Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic'''") 
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br>
(cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) ('''The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence''') 

--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Most of those weren't my edits. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Answer ==
Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solomon ==
Hi, I checked out your [[House of David]] article and followed the first link to [[Solomon]]. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Article for your attention please==
[[Four Emperors Era]] needs work and it seems like you would know about it. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:nice work LT [[User:Bohdan|bd]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::Glad you like it ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

correction made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Glad I could help [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry!==

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. ''':P''' --[[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Intuitive page naming==
Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for '''Antonia''' ... your article is actually about [[Antonia Minor]], who also had a sister named Antonia, [[Antonia Major]]. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called '''Bob''' or '''Smith''' and expecting ''your'' choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:I believe you will find that there is much literature in antiquity for Antonia Minor and little for Antonia Major. I have sought to make the Roman history section friendly and easy for those wanting quick flowing information. In that regard I've created the articles that allow quick movement back and forth in a simple form to get a feel for the interconnectedness. If it would come to a point where more obscure persons in Roman history start having their own articles, and thus there is more than one Antonia, then the format can certainly be changed, but since you are talking literally thousands of entries with many thousand more events that would also have to be entered to start including auxillary Roman figures, it would appear to be a structure that has no body.

:I also find you method of change and do not discuss to be rather rude and inappropriate for a cooperative effort. I have discussed and been involved in renaming both for articles written by others and for articles I've written. It's usually not that difficult to discuss a new direction to go and both be on the same page working together. Again, I ask you to please consider that for the future. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::You are missing the point! If you just created each article with the correct name at the outset, then it would not matter what happened afterwards, whether further articles were created or not. It doesn't make the section more easily navigated by having only half of a name and it increases the workload later of having to fix all the links to point to the correct name. Please consider ''that'' for the future. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I am afraid you are missing the point. This is a cooperative effort. I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions. You are my peer, not my boss, and your views are views like any other person that should be discussed. I don't even treat my workers with the heavy handed methods that you use, and I am their boss.

:::If people come to look up things on Conservapedia you have to keep their attention quickly. Many are not going to be computer savvy and are not going to want to go through different screens picking who they want from lists imported from wikipedia of multiple entries that don't even exist on our system. We have one Antonia entry right now. It doesn't hurt to have that pop up. At least that was my view when I created it and I'm the one who spent the time to put it into Conservapedia and tie together a fluid interlocking of the people of ancient Rome at that time that allows easy look up. The key is to get ourselves up to the point where other edits will ultimately be necessary. That is my opinion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

<strike>::::"I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions." Hello Pot, meet Kettle. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)</strike>Okay, LT, I'll try to be more considerate when editing; yell me on my talk page if you spot me getting over-enthusiastic in any particular areas. Shalom :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God's blessing to you as well. I'm sure this small distraction will not keep either of us from using our talents to continue to improve conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

*Why are two of my favorite editors arguing? Can't we get along? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, B :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

*You guys thank Bohdan profusely! I saw this earlier, and decided I was going to check back, and if it was still going, decide the arugment my way! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:31, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

==Uribe Human Rights Abuses==
Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --[[User:FreedomandLiberty|FreedomandLiberty]] 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.

== Contact.... ==

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser" --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Ralph Reed, et. al. ==

*You are making me concerned. Please don't make me concerned. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't understand what you were talking about until I read the edit. My edit, as I understood it, was only for links. I did not mean to put back ridiculous information. It appears I accidentally added the links to the previous version and not the most recent. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== courtesy notice ==

I liked your [[Praetorian guard]] article and I have found that your articles are well written at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is experimenting with uncited templates in order to help increase the useability of our articles as a reference resource. I put a uncited template on your [[Praetorian guard]] guard and as a courtesy I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all the fine work you have done at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for the courtesy notice Conservative. I am pleased you liked the article and I'm pleased for your kind words towards the work I have been able to contribute. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:49, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for being so gracious to my request and I have another request ==

Dear Learning together,

Thank you for your kind response to my previous request. I found another article that you had significantly contributed to and I was hoping you could squeeze in some time to cite this article: [[Marcus Aurelius]]. Again, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you again for the kind words. Unfortunately, while I have sources, I also have accumulated knowledge over time which is a bit harder to put as a reference. I've put the main sources I'm using to augment that knowledge. I'm not sure what the bibliography format should be for books as I've checked other articles and found multiple forms. Please let me know if there is an agreed upon standard that I should emulate. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry to come in uninvited, but that had been a problem for me too. I think I just copied the format from a different article, and kept using it. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Schlafly. If there isn't a standard for this, I think there should be. Congratulations on your over 1000 contributions. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::It is always good to hear from you my friend. You are a great benefit to Conservapedia and I am glad to see your work is well received by so many. Everywhere I look, you are keeping on top of things. Blessings always ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the compliment LT. Your work is greatly appreciated. Have a look here. This article seems like one for you to make: [[Amoz]]. perhaps you would want it? I could always try it if your too busy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I've expanded Amoz, although there wasn't much to put. The Bible doesn't say anything about him except as a title for Isaiah "son of Amoz". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== John the Baptist ==

You reverted Jinka's edits on the John the Baptist article. I have undone your reversion and protected the article. Before the article is unprotected, we need to have a discussion on the article's talk page, and I believe it should start with your reply to Jinkas. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 11:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:The usual protocol when a revert is done is to keep the old version until a discussion in talk can create concensus. Your decision to revert and protect is questionable. The information stated as fact is Mormon doctrine and believed only by the Mormon Church. To state it as fact was and is inappropriate. I do not question your religious beliefs, but if articles are going to be changed to present your church's views as fact when they are not supported by a single other Christian denomination, then we will have problems. I have not noted you doing this in the past, and I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and will not be part of a new trend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::"Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong...all there creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)
:::In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult." [http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::"The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

:::Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

:::"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.""[http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::I'm sorry, but Mormonism ''isn't'' Christianity, and editing Christian articles to present the Mormon doctrine is just plain wrong. Sorry, but thast's the way it is. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not going to question Crocoites deeply held religious beliefs or how he would define himself. But when a choice is made to push those beliefs to overlay mainstream Christian thought and act like it is a natural part of the Christian understanding, then I have a problem. I am pleased to have you as an ally in this Fox. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*Can I express how truly disappointed I am in your actions? Here you need partners, colleagues, not an ally. To be in a leadership position here, or anywhere, one needs to rise above their personal beliefs, and build consensus. Shutting others out of that process builds distrust. Now you see where this has all gotten you, eh? The question now is, what will you be willing to do to repair the damage done to your reputations... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::I am sorry Terry, but I stand by my actions. The choice to lock the article by a sysop when there was no edit war in place and after himself reverting back to the questionable edit set this off. One common theme that came across from the talk section was that no one who commented believed the locked version was appropriate as written. If left to the natural editing process, myself and the original contributor would have come to an article that pretty much matches what is there now, and without the hassle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*So there was no need for your posting to Rob, et.al. was completely unnecessary, wasn't it? I wouldn't continue to stand by your inappropriate actions for too long. You know I have been supportive, as I have with Fox, but you both have severely tried me in your poor judgements in handling this. Way too divisive. Way too strident and alarmist. You always have the option with me, you know, to email or IM, otherwise my posts are public, but just as candid. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct; there was no need to post to anyone and it would not have occurred, until the article was improperly reverted and locked with an inappropriate edit in place. I tried talking to Crocoites; I got nowhere. I said I'd take it up to Andy; he said go ahead. Instead of going for the top, I decided to go to the sysop level, and my solicitations for extra input were done in good taste, not 'the sky is falling'. Let's not forget either that during the entire time Crocoites has never tried to defend his actions, only stated he is going to leave because he's personally hurt.

::As you know Terry, I am in a leadership position in the "real" world. We expect people to defend actions that they take, or else don't take them. In the case of a mistake, admit it, and move on. I've seen the "I'm hurt" argument in place of constructive explanation. It doesn't fly. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*Since Crocoite is a Sysop, the next level would have been Andy. You can keep talking all you want about what you think is "right" according to how you think, how you believe, but my point here is what was right for CP. Now, I expect you to be repairing this. Perhaps a writing plan? I will wait to hear from you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::If I didn't think it was right for CP Terry, I wouldn't have done it. Junior High kids coming to CP would have thought that was a natural part of John the Baptist. There was no indication that it had any difference in weight or belief from the earlier Biblical sections. I've found there is a higher tier of sysops based on their time, experience, and editing privileges. Even now my friend, you tell Bodhan, who is a sysop, that you have dibs on me for a project even after he asked me first. And you know what, none of us will question that because you are deferred to for your greater experience and time on CP. I don't know what you mean below about showing I can contribute for the greater good. I have over 1200 edits over a large spectrum of topics. Day by day even I'm not sure which directions I'll be taken. I'm not sure what part of the body of my work would not show the greater good in your sight. I'm a volunteer here contributing because I can help out, and I do. If there is some other way you feel I can be beneficial, then I'm happy to hear it, but this is your baby. You can always email me if you have specific things you wish to discuss. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm not sure how much information is available on these characters, but could you go through this list of Roman emperors here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Empire] and add what you can? I would try, but I'm not very good at my Roman history. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I will be happy to help my friend. I'm afraid I've gotten behind on the things I've wanted to do. Finishing up the Emperors is on my list. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps, Bohdan, you could ask someone else, as I have prior dibs on Learn Together for a writing plan, etc. He will need to demonstate to me his ability to work for the greater good, rather than specific issues, before he can participate in what you want, my friend. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Contest ==

Could you be interested in being in the contest?

Could you join Team 1? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Team_contest/Team_one Here]
Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I would be honored my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, in my next turn you will be in. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:53, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Whoops, sorry, I didn't understand what was occurring and simply placed myself on your team. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit: [[Conservapedia:Team contest|Basis]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Please contact me by my E-Mail. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work. Keep going. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 02:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit:

[[Team1:Players]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:49, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back... --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Joaquin, both for the "Excellent work" and the "Welcome back" ;-) I have a few things I need to do, but I still intend to add many more contributions before it ends. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work, my friend. Team 2 is not far from us. I think we still have a chance to win. Keep pushing. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

----

We have two articles that are in a good position in Google:

[[Andrew Mellon]] 76 among 142 000.

[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] 14 among 37 500.

Do you think you could help to improve them in order to get a better ranking?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:58, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scotland==
I agree with your reasoning and have unlocked Scotland. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, I appreciate it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== turkey ==

That may not be an "official" reason, but it is most certainly a reason for protest. Can we put it back in? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== French and Indian Wars ==

Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles. I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==Falklands==

Hi LearnTogether. I just reworded your update to the Falklands article a bit so that it reads better, let me know if you don't like it. Note that many of the Argentinian casualties were sailors, not soldiers. 655 is the official number, do you have a source that says its called into question? I couldn't find one (after not very long looking, I have to admit). Thanks [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:03, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have a fine edit Feret and I'm glad you added your input. I have no problem with it. The question as to casualties is the source itself - the Argentine government at the time which wildly misled its people as to the course of the war and had a very vested interest to keep the numbers low after losing to Great Britain. It's a bit like trusting Hamas casualty numbers. Peace to you, and may you continue to make many fine edits. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Division by zero ==

You can divide by zero, but the calculation is effectively meaningless as the answer returned is always infinity. This is why calculators and Excel display an error message when asked to perform this function. Hope this helps. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 19:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== 1500 ==

I hope after the Contest you would have 3000. :) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:56, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll try my best my friend. ;-) Best wishes to everyone in the contest, but either way Conservapedia wins. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

You need to make a new page for Contest Personal Record. Take a look [[User:Joaquín Martínez/Contest|here]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I already thought of that. You have blocking privileges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:57, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team page==
Try it now LT; if it still bounces you, yell Joaquin - I'm slipping away for a couple of hours of kip ;) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Fox, you're the man! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I haven't been contributing much lately. I've been very busy with work, family issues and Toastmasters. I would appreciate your input on the new section at the Team 1 contest page. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:28, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have it, and any contributions are appreciated. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Welcome template==
<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~~}}</nowiki>

[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Stlphotog ==

[[Lutheran Church]] is also copied from a Wikipedia article. More info is on Aschafly's talk page. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am surprised because it is not especially well written, but thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]]
::He did a rather poor job of concealing his plagiarism; it is partially rephrased or summarized in places. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I've rewritten the article. Hopefully now it is unique to Conservapedia. Thank you again for catching this violation and your efforts on following through. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== request for help ==

Can you help me with the footnote section of [[evolution]]. Right now 1/2 the footnotes are just bare links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am sorry my friend, but that article is protected to people like me. ;-) Best wishes though, it's looking better all the time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:27, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== "The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History." ==

Why not just post the book in its entirety instead of the 81 - and counting - three sentence fragments from it you've posted so far? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 23:37, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll be happy to answer you... when you have taken the time to show that you wish to improve Conservapedia by making 81 new entries of your own. Peace. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:41, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
::He was a troll/sock and won't be making ''any'' new entries! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Somehow I didn't think that would be his cup of tea. ;-) Thank you my friend! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==

Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 10:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
==I see==
You're working on the LXX, I started [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], should we be thinking of adding a category such as '''Bible versions'''? [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:I think that's a good idea. Put it as a subcategory under Bible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Go right ahead, I can't even find the list for categories! [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Done ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::That was a good idea. I protected the 2000 election because of walter repeated false changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you my friend. ;-) I was hoping I wouldn't have to block him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:35, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

I don't know how to copy and download pics to Conservapedia. Can you show me how to do it? If I am not able to understand your directions can you download some pictures for me? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==defaultsort==

Thanks for your work default sorting entries! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome Dan. ;-) I kind of came across them by accident, but when I see them I try to clean them up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== I didn't ==

I didn't copy from Wikipedia or any place against policy.--'''[[user:FellowChristian16|Fellow]]Christian[[user_talk:FellowChristian16|16]]''' 23:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Winners ==

Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Congratulations! We won! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Did they give any totals my friend? Where can we check them up? Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:13, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Good question...I'll see what I can find and get back to you asap! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:14, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you Deborah ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Congrats! I just looked at recent changes and it looks like it's NE Patriots night... --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 23:32, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hey, you did all the work Tash! As I'm putting in the sorts, I can't believe how much effort you put into filling out bios on so many players! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Renoir:

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==take page v. user page==

When both pages are blank, don't you think you are getting worked up over nothing? Honestly - the user hasn't made any indication of how he wants his castle to be utilized. You're making assumptions for him, which seems to intrude heavily into his autonomy. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 02:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Unless you have been given express permission, one way is right and one is wrong. It's not getting worked up. It's trying to help you understand Conservapedia rules and etiquette. Other wikis are into that sort of trampling each other thing, but here we try to be respectful and civil. I'm sure if he requests his user page to be used, that no one will have a problem with that. Another point that you may wish to consider is to avoid 'ping-pong' conversations, we try to keep the writing on one talk user page. If you had responded to me on your page, I would have seen it just as well with the fuller context. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Categories, Etc. ==

*You might want to check this out: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Wikilinking_of_dates]] I would like your thoughts as well, particularly in regard to the categories and wanted page list, via IM or email, at first, until we build some direction. Perhaps I can even compel you, Aziraphale, BrianCo and Mr. Rayment into a productive chat session! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Block powers? ==

Please take a look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Religion&diff=250801&oldid=250328 this]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for your astute eye. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Not sure if [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Was_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=prev&oldid=250808 this] is a problem, but the user changed another user's comments on a talk page. (I reverted the change, but keep an eye on the guy.) {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Same page, earlier [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AWas_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=250799&oldid=211259 edit] also problematic. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

[[User:MichaelaHunt]] is vandalizing. Could you also protect a few pages for me? [[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]] and [[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]. thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*LT, please refer all requests from PheasantHunter to me, okay? He is very adept at playng the system, and that is exactly what he has been doing. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I'd appreciate it if you brought such gossip and innuendo to me before posting it on other users tal pages. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==My Niger edits==

Just for the record, that was a screw up on my part, not an attempt at vandalism. I meant to end the white house website with .gov, not .org...I had no idea that parody site even existed. As a school librarian, I'm plagued by the white house .com site, which is a porno site. I will be more careful in the future. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:All of us can make mistakes. I'm sure if you have good strong edits in the future that it will long be forgotten. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Final Scores==

Well...it's taken a while, and I hope it's not too late, but I finally have the final scores. In the end, it came out 9618 for Team1 and 5384 for Team2. And you may want to know, the judge particularly said you and Fox "worked your tails off and made a Team 1 victory." ([[User talk:DeborahB.]], "Scores") So thanks for all your help! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 23:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, it was an honor working with everyone. I'm glad I could help my team... and of course Conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:16, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== [[France]] ==

Hi,

I changed again the formulation of the sentence about expats; I think "have left France" sounds like a definitive choice and is not an appropriate formulation.

Regards,[[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 12:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Default Sort==

Just curious to know what the "Default Sort" thing you're putting on the pages is doing...thanks! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 19:56, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hi Deborah. It changes how they're alphabetized. So an entry for Bill Clinton, instead of showing up under the "B"'s, can show up under the "C"'s, for Clinton. Hope that helps. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, it does...thanks! I just kept seeing it and figured it had something to do with the proper way to do names (last, then first) but I just didn't know how. [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 20:01, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edits==
I changed them cause they were inaccurate. That's all. I'll get permission next time I am gonna change somefink.

:No harm done, it's just a good habit to get into to discuss them in the talk section first. Thank you for taking the time to respond. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==

Bill, Andy asked me to take charge of the categories. Therefore I would respectfully ask you to refrain from reverting my edits, placing them. Okay? Is there some problem that made it impossible for you to communicate with me directly before doing so? There is a special Sand Box page I emailed you about, where ANY new categories are supposed to be discussed first. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:Actually my friend, I don't have an email with the sandbox page. Please send it to me. By the way, that wasn't a new category. I had noticed that there was both a "Probability and Statistics" and a "Statistics" category. I was attempting to consolidate based upon what already existed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Hey ==

Thanks for the welcome.

I look forward to contributing to conservapedia, especially on the heated topics of creationism & devilution.

--[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 14:44, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Eugenics

2007-08-02T18:40:25Z

Rolloffle:

[[Image:Gtr766.png|right|thumb|300px|Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.]]
'''Eugenics''' was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "[[selective breeding]]". What this meant, in actual practice, was [[forced sterilization]] of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California). [http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html]

The idea of Eugenics was first developed by Sir Francis Galton in 1865 <ref>[http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap02.html Francis Galton and the Eugenics Society]</ref>, he based his ideas on the work of his cousin [[Charles Darwin]].

The [[liberal]] American Medical Society provided this summary:
:"The publication of Darwin's [[Origin of Species]] in 1859 led to the rise of the eugenics movement in Europe. Eugenics supporters believed that [[race]]s could be improved by [[selective breeding]]. The Nazi Party adopted this belief and began a campaign against the Jews. Many physicians joined the [[Nazi Party]] because they needed jobs." -- "Medicine against society: lessons from the Third Reich," ''The Journal of the American Medical Association'', Nov. 27, 1996 (Vol. 276, No. 20), at p. 1657(5), by Jeremiah A. Barondess.

==Genocide==
Many genocides have been commited in the name of Eugenics, most notably [[the Holocaust]]. Adolf Hitler was a strong believer in Eugenics & Evolution and believed that Jewish people were closest to apes, followed by Africans, Asians, non-Aryan Europeans, and finally Aryans who he believed were most evolved.

[[Stephen Jay Gould]], an [[evolutionist]], was more succinct: "The Nazi [[racial hygiene]] program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]." [http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm]

== References ==

<references/>

== External References ==

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

[[Category:philosophy]]

==See also==

*[[Genetic engineering]]

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T18:35:44Z

Rolloffle:

Live Prayer

2007-08-02T18:35:26Z

Rolloffle: New page: '''Live Prayer''' is an evangelical television program based in St. Petersburg, Florida, Florida. The show airs live Monday through Friday at 1 am eastern time (10pm...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-08-02T18:29:36Z

Rolloffle: /* Mormon position */

The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in Fayette, New York. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in Ohio and Missouri. While the Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving community in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by Brigham Young, these pioneers fled 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquarted today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD History of the Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in Christ, and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to Chicago Democrat editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of Faith, stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1] <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997]</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the Bible - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon]] - Another Testament of Jesus Christ
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith.

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===John the Baptist===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic Priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref>

==Wards==

Wards are local congregations of the church. The Bishop is the leader of the ward and he serves along with two of his counselors. The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The entire church meets twice a year (in April and October) to hear messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. The members listen to modern-day revelation from these church leaders.

==Controversy==

===Mormons' relationship to Christianity===

====Mormon position====

Mormons are Christians who accept [[The Book of Mormon]] in addition to the [[King James Bible]]. The Book of Mormon includes an account of ancient peoples living in the Americas from long before, and until centuries after Christ's mortal ministry on Earth. According to the [[The Book of Mormon]], Jesus Christ appeared in the Americas after his resurrection, healing the sick, blessing the children, and teaching the people.

Mormons differ from most Christians on a number of key issues. They do not believe in the diety of Christ, they believe in salvation through works, they believe God was once a mortal man, and that [[Jesus]] & [[Lucifer]] are "spirit brothers". <ref>[http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html Are Mormonism, Mormon Church, and Mormon Beliefs Christian?]</ref>

====Positions of Various Christian Groups ====

There are, however, significant difference between Mormonism and mainstream Protestant denominations. The [[United Methodist Church]] has stated that the Mormon faith has "some radically differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of [[God]]; the nature, origin, and purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]; and the nature and way of [[salvation]]."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an200513.html#21</ref> The [[Lutheran Missouri Synod|Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]] goes further, stating that it, "together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church."<ref>http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239</ref> However, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have high regard for the theology of the Lutheran Church or most other protestant denominations either.

While the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] states that the Mormon religion is "not consistent with biblical Christianity."<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/southern_baptist_convention_wa.php</ref> Beliefnet.com details a number of differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the popular mind.

A 1998 statement by LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==

===Mormon===
*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]

===Anti-Mormon===

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:LDS Church]]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-08-02T18:28:49Z

Rolloffle: /* Mormon position */

The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in Fayette, New York. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in Ohio and Missouri. While the Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving community in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by Brigham Young, these pioneers fled 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquarted today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD History of the Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in Christ, and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to Chicago Democrat editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of Faith, stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1] <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997]</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the Bible - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon]] - Another Testament of Jesus Christ
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith.

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===John the Baptist===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic Priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref>

==Wards==

Wards are local congregations of the church. The Bishop is the leader of the ward and he serves along with two of his counselors. The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The entire church meets twice a year (in April and October) to hear messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. The members listen to modern-day revelation from these church leaders.

==Controversy==

===Mormons' relationship to Christianity===

====Mormon position====

Mormons are Christians who accept [[The Book of Mormon]] in addition to the [[King James Bible]]. The Book of Mormon includes an account of ancient peoples living in the Americas from long before, and until centuries after Christ's mortal ministry on Earth. According to the [[The Book of Mormon]], Jesus Christ appeared in the Americas after his resurrection, healing the sick, blessing the children, and teaching the people.

Mormons differ from most Christians on a number of key issues. They do not believe in the diety of Christ, they believe in salvation through works, they believe God was once a mortal man, and that [[Jesus]] & [[Lucifer]] are "spirit brothers". [http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html]

====Positions of Various Christian Groups ====

There are, however, significant difference between Mormonism and mainstream Protestant denominations. The [[United Methodist Church]] has stated that the Mormon faith has "some radically differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of [[God]]; the nature, origin, and purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]; and the nature and way of [[salvation]]."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an200513.html#21</ref> The [[Lutheran Missouri Synod|Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]] goes further, stating that it, "together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church."<ref>http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239</ref> However, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have high regard for the theology of the Lutheran Church or most other protestant denominations either.

While the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] states that the Mormon religion is "not consistent with biblical Christianity."<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/southern_baptist_convention_wa.php</ref> Beliefnet.com details a number of differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the popular mind.

A 1998 statement by LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==

===Mormon===
*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]

===Anti-Mormon===

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:LDS Church]]

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-08-02T18:16:56Z

Rolloffle: Charles Darwin married his cousin

== Shooting Darwin Down ==

someone who can write better than me should put this theory in the darwin, evolution, intelligent design and irreducible complexity pages 

[http://www.videosift.com/video/Peanut-Butter-The-Atheists-Nightmare|The Athiest's Nightmare]

--[[User:Thurston|Thurston]] 21:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You ''can't'' be serious. I think that I may have lost an IQ point or two after watching that drivel. Is this from the same people who tried to put forth the ''domesticated'' banana as a disproof of evolution? --[[User:M|M]] 20:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
----

This article is heavily weighted toward a discussion of Darwin's struggle with religious faith with comparatively little discussion of those things for which he is principally of interest.

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

No joke. This is completely refuted. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:50, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

False Information in Article

Ernst Mayr, 1991 ''One Long Argument'' page 75 says Darwin became an Atheist and not an Agnostic. I own a copy of the book. The article as it now sits is wrong.

According to the ''Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition'' "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, ten years after ''Origin of Species'' was published.

Ray Martinez

PS: In fact, the entire Religious Views section looks like it was written by an evolutionist attempting to cover Darwin's atheism. I thought this was Conservapedia and not Wikipedia?

The section in question is totally wrong, illogical and written out of context.

Let me know if you want the truth written.

RM

----

I have edited the ''Religious Views'' section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. I also erased a paragraph about Darwin's family being connected to Ben Franklin. If someone wants to re-edit the article and place it elsewhere then fine, but it does not belong in the ''Religious Views'' section of article.

When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis.

Ray Martinez 6-12-07

: Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the bias - that was me - it was accidental.

Ray Martinez 6-12-06

: Ray, I have to disagree with your reasoning for why we know Darwin was atheist, or at the very least with your usage of the term. I'm an atheist myself, and if you you look up the term in a dictionary, it's quite clear: atheists do not believe and any god or gods. While Darwin's theories prove he rejected a lot of major Christian beliefs, that does not nessecarily prove he completely rejected the existance of God (or a god, at least). I think agnostic would be a better term to use. [[user:Catgirlthecrazy]] - 12:50, 28 June

----
::::Ray, you asked me to intervene. Can you quote verbatim Ernst Mayr stating that Darwin was a atheist? Secondly, it seems to me as if this material has more historical immediacy in that it claims Darwin preferred to be called an agnostic and I cite footnote 30 from a AIG article: "In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Büchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/slide.asp] Now Thomas Huxley appeared to have coined the term "agnosticism". [http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/origins.htm] Thomas Huxley was a contemporary of Darwin so it appears as if Darwin could have called himself an agnostic. Any comments Ray? I am open for discussion on this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:14, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::It appears as if Ray used this reference to claim that Darwin was an atheist: Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75 Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and is a prominent figure in the history of the evolutionary theory. Perhaps Mayr suspects that Darwin was a closet atheist due to the social stigma of proclaiming yourself an atheist that someone wrote above existed in Victorian England. I was hoping that Ray would provide me a quote from Mayr's work but I don't think that will happen as I was told he was banned and that he has no further interest in Conservapedia. If anyone wants to look this up it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:44, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

----

==Reply to Conservative==

'''Dear Conservative:''' I think you should review your own comments about Charles Darwin that appear on the Internet. Your flip flopping is atrocious. When Darwin said he preferred to be called an Agnostic the context was to avoid the negative stigma of Atheism in the 19th century. He was admitting Atheism but wanting to be called Agnostic for the reason just explained. It is a mystery that you suddenly do not understand this? If you have forgotten what you have said about Darwin in the past let me know and I will gladly post your previous opinions on your talk page.

In addition: Why do you suddenly doubt that Mayr said Darwin was an Atheist? Before, you had no doubt, now you are saying Mayr never said it. It is up to you to disprove if you disagree. Mayr 1991:75 says Darwin was an Atheist before the late 1830s.

Why has your good Fundamentalist buddy Moderator used the ultra-liberal "Religious Tolerance" web site to claim Darwin an Agnostic but you do not challenge this unscholarly source? Why does the Darwin article say he was an Agnostic using Mayr (who did not say Agnostic but Atheist) and not the liberal web page? As it sits now many Moderators know of this false information in article and have not changed it!

What is apparent is that you have made some serious mistakes and cannot simply admit it without making intelligence insulting excuses.

RM 2-7-07

----

REPLY TO Ray:

Ray, I saw today that you are back at Conservapedia. I understand that you and TK (the Sysop/Admin) are battling regarding the Darwin atheist/agnostic issue. I wanted you to provide the Mayr quote so we could say in the Darwin article that the Prominent evolutionist and Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr said ".........................." and provide the footnote so this way TK could not easily dispute the matter. I do believe that Conservapedia should be rule based and that material pointing to Darwin being a closet atheist should not be squelched out of a conservative encyclopedia merely because a Sysop/Admin (namely TK) doesn't like the material. As far as me saying Mayr never said Darwin was a atheist I merely asked for a quote so this way the whole TK vs Ray issue could be diffused. As far as me believing that Darwin was an atheist earlier, I think we should set aside this issue of what I believed or disbelieved and focus on factual matters in regards to issue at hand and that is: Was Darwin an atheist or a agnostic.

'''I believe the case is extremely stronger for Darwin being a closet atheist who at times found it hard to maintain atheistic thinking than for Darwin being a agnostic.''' I say this based on what I strongly suspect Mayr said {which I wish you would provide a small quote for if possible) and the following material regarding Darwin which I read today:

"Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’ [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877]

I also cite a review of a book written in the British Journal for the Philosophy (Volume 47,1996, page 641) saying: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a materialist and mechanist...." [http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor]

I also cite this material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:56, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Of course we know Darwin was a Materialist (= Atheist). I could provide these comments right from Darwin's own mouth (as you have). I wonder why the "most knowledgeable" TK has hand-waved Darwin the materialist away in favor of a liberal web page?

Mayr 1991:75 "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus.... but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' more or less = atheist"

OR: "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" Ernst Mayr ''American Scientist'' May 1977 p. 323

That is the exact quote.

You are a Mod, why don't you revert the article back to the way Andy and I had it?

This is Conservapedia and not atheist-Wikipedia protecting a flaming Atheist like Charles Darwin. How could anyone who banished God think he was not an Atheist? THIS IS RHETORICAL.

Ray 7-2-07

: In the 1600s, the common idea was that angels pushed planets as they orbited the Earth. Kepler provided the means for a materialistic description for the motion of the planets. Newton got the math down for it. That said, Kepler was Lutheran. Newton is a bit tougher to classify (he did write "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.") The point that I am attempting to make is that removing God from natural phenomena does not make one an atheist... unless you still want to believe that the angels push the planets around as they orbit the Earth. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::Your point defies logic: removing God is atheistic. Your commentary attempting to support your "logic" is a straw man. If Kepler was a genuine Lutheran he would not remove God; therefore Kepler (assuming he was as you say) feigned to be a Lutheran.

::Ray 7-2-07

::::Dear Ray, I think you will be most pleased with how I edited the [[Charles Darwin]] article just now. I am sorry I was not more attentive to this situation earlier. I was working on the [[Theory of evolution]] and [[Origin of life]] articles and I put this on the back burner. Our origin of life material was quite deficient and I wanted to improve it as fast as possible. I do wish to sincerely offer my apologies. I also wish to state that I believe you may have misunderstood what I wrote about Darwin in regards to his beliefs but perhaps not but I think we should set that aside but please feel free to write to me about this privately. I also wish to thank you for letting me know about this Darwin/materialist matter as I was not aware of it earlier. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You are suggesting that if there are two theories, one that invokes God as the reason, the other that invokes a materialistic reason it is the one that invokes God that is correct - or to suggest that the materialistic one is correct is atheistic? The inquiry of how the universe works and marveling it its beauty and intricate and subtle laws is not inherently an atheistic pursuit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* Your question solicits opinion, not fact. Can it be conclusively demonstrated that his illness was Divine punishment? If not, I would say leave it out. Unless it's proven, it doesn't matter how many people think this or that about it. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== A note on Darwin ==

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. ==

The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==More advanced then women?==

I can't find that phrase in Decent of Man is their a citation for this? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Revamp the article? ==

It seems a little odd to me that the section on Darwin's religious beliefs dwarfs the rest of it...--[[User:M|M]] 17:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== A naturalist is a kind of biologist... ==
...so Darwin belongs in ''both'' categories.
"1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany." [http://www.bartleby.com/61/4/N0030400.html] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== religioustolerance.org==
Per discussions with User:Conservative, the link to religioustolerance.org is a decidely [[leftist]] and anti-Christion site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Conservative&diff=prev&oldid=192253#religioustolerance.org][http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS/archive3#I_dislike_the_lefty_religioustolerance_site_too_but....] An article in the ''National Review'' [http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp] says this of religioustolerance.org,

:"a number of Lefty sites that link to the following description of Dominionism at religioustolerance.org. This description includes the claim that Dominionists “advocate genocide for followers of minority groups and non-conforming members of their own religion.” I’m not sure this is accurate, even for the minuscule number of actual Dominionists. But the disturbing thing is the way this and other Left-leaning sites use logical sleight-of-hand to tar ordinary evangelicals with the madcap musings of a few fevered “Dominionists.”"

Citations to this website have already been removed from the [[Creationism]] article.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=prev&oldid=192474] Religioustolerance.org is not an appropriate cite we should be linking to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Why did a Conservapedia Mod use this site to begin with? Are we to believe he did not know? The article now says that Mayr said Darwin was an Agnostic when Mayr said Atheist. Why hasn't the Mod who reverted back to Agnostic not used the web page? The article gives the false impression that Mayr said Darwin was Agnostic. I find it hard to believe that the Mod who used the liberal web site forgot to change his source to that site instead of Mayr.

::Ray Martinez 2-7-07

:::All sources I've read say he was an atheist. In fact, reading personal quotes on "Christianity" and "the Judeo-Christian God" in [[Jacques Barzun]]'s book, the man sounds just like [[Adolf Hitler]] in ''Hitler's Table Talk''. Please feel free to make the correction. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I have unproteced the page so someone can make the correction. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: What about Andy? I was under the impression that he was deciding? But I do want to thank you for your help and objectivity - thanks! I will make the edit as soon as you reply to this - thanks.

:::Ray 7-2-07

----

===New Edit===

Has many errors.

How can anyone think that the article is well written?

Ray 7-2-07

::I have made a newer edit. I did this because certain Moderators seemed to approve that a new edit was in order.

::Ray 7-2-07
==YOUR EDIT WAS NEGATED==

We identified and made the edit of Charles Darwin being an Atheist here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&diff=195878&oldid=195864]

Our source was Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr ''One Long Argument'' 1991:75

Now, one of your own Moderators (a "closet" Darwinist) has changed the article[http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin] to say Darwin was an Agnostic using a liberal web page source run by Atheists and Darwinists who happen to own a clerical collar. But this same Moderator, when he reverted the edit, kept the Mayr source which does not say Darwin was an Agnostic but an Atheist. The liberal web page source is this page:[http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm] It includes Atheists and Wiccans as deciding what Christianity is and is not.

Why has this Moderator changed the article to say Darwin was Agnostic but retains Mayr as a source? Why has he not used his original web page source?[http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm]

You already agreed that the Agnostic label was obviously false and agreed with my reasoning here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Charles_Darwin]

Ray Martinez:
:"I have edited the Religious Views section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. (SNIP irrelevant material)

:When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis."

Andy A. responds:
:"Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments."--Aschlafly 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, '''ten years after ''Origin of Species'' was published.''' "Agnostic" was only invented to give Atheists safe harbor; an attempt to recast themselves hoping their silly opinions and anti-God theories from being dismissed by someone pointing out their Atheism (which in the case of Darwin is most obvious).

Wikipedia says Darwin was an Agnostic. I was under the impression that Conservapedia exists to erase their untruthful bias?

Charles Darwin:
:"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World" ''Descent of Man'' 1871:389 Vol.2

Genesis 2:7
:"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Ray Martinez 7-2-07

: Very interesting Ray. I didn't know that [[agnostic]] is a modern term! Please give me some time to consider all this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, Andy. If you want additional scholars (not web pages) identifying Darwin an Atheist let me know. I can supply three big name scholars.

::RM 7-2-07

:::Can you erase this uncalled for comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&action=history] calling me a "lunatic vandal" for reverting the Agnostic edit back to Atheist? Since you had also made the edit it implies that anyone making the Atheist edit is a "lunatic vandal"?

:::Ray M. 7-2-07

*Ray Martinez, you are a fabricator, and your continued posts making things up boarder on the trollish. You claimed that DanH and myself were vandals on Conservative's talk page, for our edits here. Two Sysops. I have now blocked you for one week for name calling. You have no special license here, and although your contributions are appreciated, I urge you to steer clear of inflammatory charges and vindictive rhetoric, as has Conservative. No matter what the editors qualifications, that does not allow them to flaunt the rules. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:35, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you are linking to religioustolerance.org, a highly partisan and bigotted source. This is the sort of source [[Scientologist]]s use to support claims. I do not believe CP should give this anti-Christian source any credence whatsoever. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

*You may present your evidence, privately, via the usual methods, Rob. Until then, it remains merely one editors opinion, of which there could be thousands of citations on this site we both would disagree about, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:13, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:Ray Martinez has a subject knowledge specialty, but appears not an experienced wiki user. Rather than working with hime to help him learn how a wiki works and develop as an editor, you appear to be insisting on inserting an extreme partisan [[leftist]] and bigotted website as a source to support you view. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:06, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
::I have some concerns about Ray as an editor. [http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a98f643ae2af6bc?dmode=source Here] he calls Philip Rayment and TK "fundy morons" and says that Christians are "unfaithful ***holes." It doesn't seem he has the best interests of the project at heart. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 21:14, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Geez, those words could have been spoken by one of our. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

*But his inflamatory remarks, many of them, were posted way before any Sysop here, other than Conservative, asked him to tone it down, Rob. That's the point. And when he was blocked for a brief few hours for it, he came back spouting more. And, are you saying anyone, even a sysop, hurtling an insult, even one made in the edit notes, that makes it okay for a user to come back with more? That two wrongs make a right? Interesting logic there. I ask that you please stop with the public insults and ridicule of other sysops publicly, as Andy has requested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:29, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:*You've never presented any evidence where it occurred. And you've been asked several times now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

----

==NonXtianConservative==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:NonXtianConservative]

This person is an admitted liberal sock. Read him admission here:[http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/61f0be62fc7d90a3]

June 19, 2007

NonXtianConservative wrote:

> > As far as the sock puppet comment, I'm

> > not suggesting that you're a sock puppet, I'm rather admitting that I

> > am (in fact, I am several sock puppets at CP). It's rather fun to put

> > in all these seemingly conservative edits which are completely

> > ridiculous. I would imagine that probably 1/10 CP users are socks of

> > one form or another.

Ray Martinez reply:

> Why be a SP at CP if the edit is not true? What is the point?

NonXtianConservative responds:

"It's terribly amusing (and in some way incredibly disheartening) that
when an edit is made that represents such an extreme point of view
that it is latched onto as a beacon of objective thought by Schalfly
and his jack booted toadies. However, when a rational person looks at
the edit from outside they realize how crazy it actually sounds. The
CP crew is working hard to try and keep a fairly big tent, but when
the patina of objectivity is worn off the article to expose the
twisted logic and prejudice underneath it loses all credibility. This
is my goal."

Ray Martinez: Here we have the evidence that the above person admits to being several socks. If the link does not work suddenly it is because our double agent has erased it. But I have it saved on another site where it cannot be erased.

Ray 7-5-07

== Importance ==
I was hoping for a more concise explanation of why Darwin is important. An explanation of his theory and why he believed in it would have been more valuable than a lengthy discourse on his religious, or lack of religious, beliefs. As the Pope acknowledged today there is no doubt that evolution has much (some?) basis in scientific fact. Scientific support of the theory does not diminish the possibility of the existence of a greater being. My apologies to the Pope if I have misstated his position. Both Darwin’s Theory and the existence of a God can exist and be believed. We need to be able to have honest discussion about such important topics without becoming galvanized. A mind open to honest discussion is a benefit to all of society. {{unsigned|Baronmarbot}}
:Just picking up on your claim that evolution and god can both exist, you are correct, as long as you are not talking about the God described in the Bible. But as you are talking about the Pope and you are probably referring to Christianity, then you are incorrect; evolution contradicts the biblical account and cannot be reconciled with it. To take one example, the Bible describes the creation of everything up to to the arrival of man as occurring in six ordinary days, whereas evolution requires billions of years. Another example is that God created everything "very good", i.e. without mistakes, defects, diseases, etc. Yet evolution has suffering, disease, and death as necessary components before you can have mankind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:40, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Charles Darwin married his cousin ==

Yes, Emma Darwin (the woman he married) was his first cousin. Out of the ten children they concieved three died due to inbreeding. [http://www.darwin-literature.com/] [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/darwin.htm]

I'm rather suprised that this hasn't been adding to the article yet, even the liberal Darwin lovers at Wikipedia have mentioned it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Darwin.27s_children]

I would add it myself but this article is protected.

--[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 14:16, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Espionage

2007-08-02T18:12:00Z

Rolloffle:

'''Espionage''' refers to the act of gathering information, generally using subversive [[mean]]s. A person who engages in espionage is called a [[spy]].

The word ''Espionage'' comes from the [[French]] word ''espionage'', meaning literally "to spy". However, it was the Americans and Russians who made the most historical use of espionage, during the [[Cold War]]. Other countries who have used espionage include [[Israel]],[http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html] [[Germany]] during [[World War II]], and [[Great Britain]]. Espionage is much less common today, except for [[industrial espionage]], which is what happens when one company spies on another one. However, it has been reported[http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070408004907AA7xtaD] that [[Al Qaeda]] has planted spies in U.S. organizations, as well.

Famous spies include [[Mata Hari]].

[[Category:Occupations]]