Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Oxymoron1985

2008-05-07T12:35:56Z

Urushnor:

Nice try on your [[Richard Dawkins]] edit, "Oxymoron". But we don't fall for [[credential bullying]] here so your unproven claim of authority concerning Oxford means nothing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Giving you a second chance by unblocking your account. Please use it wisely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice try on Richard Dawkins, indeed, but, unfortunately, when Aschlafly has decreed that something is the case, such minor things as 'facts', 'logic', and 'people knowing more about the subject than he does saying he's wrong' will persuade him of this, and he is the site owner. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Urushnor

2008-05-06T12:08:25Z

Urushnor: /* Expelled interviews Dawkins */

{{welcome}}
Does your name refer to anything in particular? [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:Just a reference in the book 'Dune'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:53, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::Sweet! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 15:13, 11 February 2008 (EST)

==Edits==
[[Special:Contributions/Urushnor|This]] would suggest that you are merely visiting this site from your ''usual haunt'' to troll and generally be disagreeable. Please make some constructive edits or I will block your account. :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:22, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Please stop edit warring ==

It is disruptive. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:45, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I looked at your link and it seems to vindicate Jinxmchue here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Okay, that makes more sense now. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled interviews Dawkins==

:...a film, called Crossroads, that explores the relationship between science and religion. Being asked that question gave the game away that he was, in fact, being interviewed by creationists for a creationist piece of propaganda. This is because this question is so easy to actually answer that only creationists ask it, and the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.

[[Expelled]] is a documentary about science and religion meeting on the "crossroads" and science being a big bully. Dawkins is one of the bullies, so you can't say he's unaware of the power dynamics.

Moreover, any questions about science, religion, or their relationship would be relevant in the interview he was paid to do.

If there is a question he objected to (so much that he actually refused to continue any further with the interview), I'm sure our readers would be interested. What was the question? Did it appear in the film? What was Dawkins's objection to it being asked? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:Dawkins did not 'object to it being asked'. As I actually said in the very bit you have quoted above, the question revealed the fact he had been misled and lied to about who was interviewing him and for what reason, and it was this that he objected to. I did actually provide a link that gave a detailed account of the events, plus a very thorough and detailed answer to the question which supposedly 'stumped' him on the same page you lifted that quote from. I also provided my own very quick and dirty answer to the same question.
:As for your assertion about Expelled, quite frankly, the film is actually a piece of utter nonsense that seems to make several huge mistakes, the main one being that of thinking that, if you question an established theory, and get laughed at because of the fact you have either no or severely flawed evidence to back your questioning up, and things happen like universities distancing themselves from your claims, or telling you not to teach it to students as fact, that is 'science being a big bully', as you put it. It's not - it's actually called 'science expecting you to do science'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionism

2008-04-30T23:05:04Z

Urushnor: /* A fresh start */

[[Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1]]

== Code tags ==

I've been wondering for a long time, is there any particular reason this artice uses <nowiki><code></nowiki> tags to produce monospaced text? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== 'Weak Atheism' ==

Philip, you are obviously not familiar with 'Weak Atheism'. Unlike 'Strong Atheism', which makes a positive statement about the non-existence of God, regardless of the evidence, this states that there is probably no God as there is no objective proof of God. The 'world view' is dependant on the evidence, or lack of evidence, as is the science, so I fail to see how, in this case, the 'science is based on the world view', as you altered it to say. You appear to believe that the only difference between 'Strong Atheism' and 'Weak Atheism' is the strength of the assertion that there is no God, whether this fits in with the evidence or not. This is not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:58, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:The article already said "Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God". Now, they may not hold the no-god view ''strongly'', but if the science is done on the basis of there being no God, then it is being done on the basis of naturalism, just as for strong atheism, which means that the worldview is the basis for the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God. Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures. If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::: If there is no proof of a God, and no proof of no God, why is "no God" the default option? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption. In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is nonsense. All science is done on the basis of unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that the laws of physics are constant, ...

::::::Because all evidence, observation and experimentation to date suggests they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: That they are constant started as an assumption, and although observations are consistent with that, it is not provable, and it remains an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::...the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments ... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Because of a distinct lack of evidence that we can't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: A ''lack'' of evidence is not evidence, and if our senses were playing tricks on us, how could we tell? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::...and so forth. Your second sentence is wrong. You don't have to accept that God exists ''before'' you are able to conclude that God was responsible. All you have to accept is the ''possibility'' that God actually exists, and there is nothing unscientific in accepting that ''possibility''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::In the complete absence of evidence of this, yes there is, unless you present it as a pure conjecture (in colloquial terms, that would be 'a wild-ass guess'). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, there is ''not''. You are ruling out a ''possibility'' because you believe that there is no evidence. That is putting the cart before the horse. It's like saying that there is no evidence that people lived in England prior to (say) 1000 AD (I'm being hypothetical), so therefore you can't propose that [[Stonehenge]] was built by people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::It is rejection of that ''possibility'' that means that atheism—strong or weak—is basing its science on ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I've kinda said this as simply as I am able, using proper English,but you still don't seem to be getting it, so I'll try putting it even simpler. Evidence = scientific. No evidence = not scientific. 'Weak atheism' = no evidence of God, so no God. Get it now? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I don't "get it". Your "no evidence of God, so no God" is like saying "No evidence = not scientific = doesn't exist". But just because there's no evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Get it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is wrong for the same reason that the second part of your previous response was wrong: you don't have to accept that God exists ''beforehand''. If the ''evidence'' points to God, why not accept that conclusion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::If the evidence pointed to God existing, you'd have a point. Your problem is that this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: The evidence ''does'' point to God existing. Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated into the idea that God doesn't exist so you are unaware of the evidence that He does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century). I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ignoring your semantic quibbles about terminology, you have your history wrong, thanks to anti-Christian propaganda through the centuries. The religious authorities were very supportive of science, and the dispute with Galileo was not due to his science, but with things like personality clashes. The rest of your response was basically to offer your own subjective opinion and a straw-man argument about faith and motivation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::So the Church formally ordered Galileo not to hold or defend the notion of heliocentrism due to 'personailty clashes'? The Catholic Inquisition put Galileo on trial for heresy, during which the idea that the Sun was at the center of the solar system was condemned as 'formally heretical', due to 'personality clashes'? At the end of that trial, his book, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', was banned, and any and all works by him, including any as yet unwritten, were also banned, due to 'personality clashes'? A general prohibition against the publication of ANY book advocating heliocentrism went into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum due to 'personality clashes'? He remained under house arrest for the rest of his life due to 'personality clashes'? Well, all I can say is that they must have taken 'personality clashes' FAR more seriously back then than they do now. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I said "''things like'' personality clashes". It was a very general, overly-simplified, reference. But apart from that, then the answers to your question are basically all "yes". See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here] for a detailed description. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::... and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly. Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Despite your opinions, the ''documented facts'' of history are that science (or "modern science" if you prefer) began because of the Christian worldview of an orderly universe created by an unchanging God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nope, that's what your interpretation of the ''documented facts'' are. Same as what I put above for the reasons for the beginning of modern science are my interpretation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Your interpretation of ''what''? No, it's not my "interpretation". I provided a link above with more information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::But they have made experiments and observations that prove that they are constant in every situation that exists naturally, or has been able to be manufactured, to date, here on Earth, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anywhere else is sufficiently different that the laws of physics would be, for some reason, invalid. Plus, of course, one of the laws of physics actually indicates that nothing that actually has any mass can go faster than the speed of light. This means it would take at least several billion years to do as you suggest. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Again, a lack of evidence is not evidence. True, it would take an awful long time to check: that only serves to show that it must remain an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::It also ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time: ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, it doesn't. It is generally believed by physicists (though this is really a hypothesis, at the moment), that, at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, all physical laws and rules basically didn't apply. Indeed, it is commonly stated that the question, 'what came before the Big Bang?' is nonsensical, because, in the Big Bang, time, basically, did not exist (though there are a couple of hypotheses that actually challenge that). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Actually, the exception you cite doesn't disprove my assertion. If you want me to be more precise, science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time since a few microseconds after the hypothesised Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::...scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Mainly because the laws of physics indicate this is impossible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Again, this only serves to show why it must remain an ''assumption''. I wasn't criticising them for not checking; I was pointing out that it can't be checked, and therefore remains an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::It also ''assumes'' that those same laws will apply into the future, so when they build bridges, etc., they use the laws that apply ''today'' to calculate required strengths and stresses and ''assume'' that they will continue to apply tomorrow. Clearly that is ''not'' "observation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::No, it is logical extrapolation from observed evidence. For example, from repeatedly observing that the force of Earth's gravity does not radically change from one day to the next, we know that it is incredibly unlikely that we are going to wake up tomorrow and find gravity has trebled, so we need to build that bridge three times as strong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: An extrapolation ''is'' an ''assumption'', or based on one. That is, we consider it safe to extrapolate ''because'' we have this ''assumption''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'. 'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God. It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: 'Weak atheists' are atheists because they ''ignore'' or ''are unfamiliar with'' or ''reject'' the evidence for God—there is no shortage of evidence—and therefore adopt a position of naturalism, basing their science on that ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Really? I trust you will make the most important event in the history of the world happen, then, by conclusively and objectively proving that God actually exists? Bear in mind, of course, that any evidence that is dependant on the notion that God actually exists would be circular reasoning. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Much of your argument in your latest post has been that believing in the constancy of the laws of physics is ''reasonable'', not that it's been ''proved''. Yet now you switch standards to demand ''proof'' (for God), and for good measure throw in a demand that I don't use what is actually a typical atheistic straw-man argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I believe you are making a common mistake in arguments of this sort. Please find above where Philip said there was a proof for God... Evidence and proof are not interchangeable words. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, if there isn't clear, undeniable proof of God, that kinda destroys his whole argument that it is basically impossible for a 'weak atheist' to be an atheist due to the evidence (or, rather, lack of it), rather than an underlying world view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: No, it doesn't destroy my argument at all. See also the parts about proof and evidence at [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::And, to address this specifically, yes, it does. The only way you can definitively say that a 'weak atheist' cannot possibly be an atheist due to the evidence is if the evidence is so overwhelming in favour of there being a God that no-one could possibly fail to be persuaded by it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::I didn't say that an atheist cannot be an atheist because of the evidence. I said that it didn't destroy my argument, but that was not my argument. My argument was that science done on the basis of there being no god was putting ideology ahead of the evidence. Why can't, for example, atheists do their science on the basis that there ''might be'' (not "is") a God? Presumably, because they are ''atheists''! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::No, doing science that way follows the most basic of basic of scientific principles - that being that you do work based on evidence. I also refer you to my comments below. Why can't scientists do work on the basis that there ''might be'' an invisible pink unicorn? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: No, true science will not rule out a possible explanation ''a priori''. Good question: why ''can't'' scientists work on the basis that there might be an invisible pink unicorn? That is, why rule out a possible explanation in advance? If the evidence is consistent with there being an invisible pink unicorn, why should scientists say "no, we can't accept that answer, even if it's true"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::Simple - with enough imagination (and that's not much), people can make up, on the spot, patently absurd possibilities that are impossible to disprove. Look up Flying Spaghetti Monster for a classic example - it is a completely made-up 'religion' that, according to your argument, is a solid bit of science, as no-one has yet conclusively disproven it. Similarly, the invisible pink unicorn is a solid bit of science, as is the idea that the universe was created by being sneezed out of the nostril of the Great Snozuflu. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
: No that is not my argument at all. Reread the part of [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] about "proving God". It doesn't directly explain where you are wrong, but should give you some idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist (in much the same way as there is no absolute proof that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist), and you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific. Indeed, that is how this whole discussion started - you making an edit to the effect that failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science. Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is, you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'. Well, that may or may not be true, but, if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, even if the reason is that it is impossible to scientifically test it, that is still unscientific. Unless, of course, you're referring to the rest of that section of your essay, in which case you appear to be saying, more or less, 'because the 'evidence' is enough to convince some people of the existence of God, regardless of whether that evidence is solid, objective or anything else, it is unscientific to base anything on the idea God does not exist.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''... so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist...''": I don't think I've put my argument in quite that way, but I'll grant that this would be inferred from what I've said as ''one'' of my points, but not the key or only point of my argument.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, sorry, I 'infer' that from pretty much everything you have said above, so, if that is not the 'key or only point of your argument', you need to learn to express yourself better. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Perhaps. Or perhaps you need to read it better, or with a more open mind? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific.''": Again, that could be ''inferred'', but my point really was that one shouldn't rule out a possible explanation in ''a priori''.
::: "''...failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science.''": No, ruling out a possible explanation ''a priori'' is down to a worldview, not science.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually, that's not quite correct - you use the evidence to, in effect, 'rule in' possibilities. You start from the basis of nothing at all. Starting from the idea that God exists is not doing that. Starting from nothing means that you have to see solid evidence of the existence of God before you accept that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I'm not suggesting starting from the basis that God exists. I'm suggesting starting from the basis that God ''might'' exist, rather than ''exclude'' that possibility ''a priori''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::So you ''a priori'' rule in the possibility of God existing BEFORE looking at the evidence. THAT is doing science based on a 'world view'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, that is proper science. Science doesn't (shouldn't) limit possible answers by having to "rule in" certain answers first. When an explanation for something is required, scientists don't have to consult a list of "ruled in" explanations to see what they are allowed to consider as possible explanations. And neither should they have to consult a list of "ruled out" explanations. They should be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You've got it almost right in your last sentence - they should, indeed, be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations, but they base those possible explanations on those observations. To 'rule in' any explanation before examining the evidence is filtering science through a 'world view'. Otherwise we have the situation of the invisible pink unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great Snozuflu being solid science, as there is nothing conclusively proving them wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: What do you think "rule in" means? To me it simply means not "ruling out". Atheists ''rule out'' God as a possible explanation before considering the evidence: that's not science. And you are making an almighty leap to suggest that ''allowing for the possibility of'' the invisible pink unicorn, etc. amounts to them being "solid science". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::If you 'rule out' something, this means it was 'on the table', so to speak, as a possibility, then something made you reject it as a possibility. If something is 'ruled in', it means it was not 'on the table', but something made you start to consider it as a possibility. In science, as I have said, you start with nothing 'on the table' and use evidence to rule possibilities in. As for comment about the invisible pink unicorn, if you're not considering it as solid science, why would you base absolutely anything on that idea, then? This lesson is told in the Bible, so you should know it, but is true of science as well - anything is only as solid as what it's built on. Any 'science' that is built on anything that is not solid science is itself not solid science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Then it's a 'straw man' you constructed yourself. What is your actual argument, then, given that everything you have stated above seems to be concerned with the idea that there is no absolute proof of the non-existence of God? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I've explained my argument numerous times by now: that if you ''a priori'' rule out considering the possibility of God being involved, then you are putting ideology ahead of the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::And the reason you believe that is, apparantly, discounting the possibility that God exists due to a lack of evidence is down to a 'world view', not science. Unfortunately, you haven't explained your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that following the evidence is not scientific, considering that examining the evidence is the whole basis of scientific enquiry. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Following the evidence ''is'' scientific. And if the evidence ''points to an intelligent creator'', scientists should be free to consider that explanation. Ruling that explanation out ''a priori'' is imposing ideology on the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Ah, right, so I'm supposed to have read all your essays, and rely on them rather than what you say here if the two seem to be advancing different arguments. Sorry about that(!) Of course, the other point is that if, as you say, it is utterly impossible to scientifically test if God exists or not, I fail to see how you can argue that it is scientific to base anything on the idea that God exists. Yes, you can have a religious faith this is so, and you can say that this might be so from a philiosophical point of view, but you simply cannot say this from a scientific point of view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I said nothing about reading all my essays. Perhaps this is an example of you not reading me properly? I referred to a specific essay that I have linked to before in this discussion (i.e. one that you would have already read) and merely did so to support my point that I've long acknowledged that God's existence cannot be ''scientifically'' tested.

::::::But you were originally arguing that it is unscientific to follow the evidence, basically. You did not actually reference that essay until well into this discussion. Does this mean I should have already read this essay, so that I knew what you were apparantly arguing wasn't what you were REALLY arguing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I have never said that following the evidence is unscientific. On the contrary, I believe that science means following the evidence, even if that leads to God being the explanation. Which you can't do if you've already ruled God out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: And despite putting this in the article and saying it here several times, you still don't get it. Science hasn't 'ruled out' God, and neither has 'weak atheism'. It has, basically, failed to 'rule in' God as there is no solid objective evidence of God. I should also point out that, if you now admit that following the evidence is scientific, then the edit you made to the article, which started this whole discussion off, is wrong - 'weak atheism' follows the evidence, as does science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You say that "Science hasn't 'ruled out' God", yet according to your version of the article, "science is done on the basis of there being no God". ''That'' is "ruling out" God. Yes you do qualify it by saying "unless His existence becomes objectively proven", but all that says is that ''if'' at some future time, God's existence is proven, ''then'' you can consider Him a possible explanation. (Which is tantamount to saying, if weak atheism ceases to be atheistic...!). Until then, however, He is ''ruled out'' as a possible explanation. "Weak atheism", if it does science on the basis of there being no God, is ''not'' following the evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly. So, according to your argument, it is scientific to totally disregard the evidence and base your conclusions on imagination. This only confirms to me that you do not have the slightest clue about even the basics of scientific practice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built? You can't. But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument? Of course not. But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people! Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, where this argument falls to pieces is that there is pretty damn clear-cut evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time. If you were saying hypothetically what if there was no evidence of man in Britain, then yes, you would be correct - we couldn't scientifically test it. However, from the evidence we actually have, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, neither would Stonehenge. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, I was being hypothetical, as I said. And yes, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, then neither would Stonehenge. But that's putting things back to front. If you ''didn't know'' that men existed in Britain at the time, but you ''did know'' that Stonehenge exists, would you (a) conclude that men must have existed at the time, or (b) ruled out that men could have made Stonehenge because you don't have evidence that men existed in Britain at the time? Your methodology in regard to God is the latter: you are saying that God couldn't have made the world because you don't have evidence that God exists. Instead, you could, like choice (a), conclude that the evidence leads you to conclude that God does exist, because that's a more reasonable explanation than saying that the universe popped into existence from nothing for no reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Sorry, in absence of solid evidence, to follow scientific practice, I would have to conclude (b), in your hypothetical situation, which would leave the question of 'who built Stonehenge?' unsanswered. I could maybe propose (a) as an unproven hypothesis, or even a pure conjecture, but it would face major problems to be overcome before it could even remotely be called a 'theory'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: It's just as well you're not a scientists then (or at least I hope you're not), if you are willing to ignore the evidence that there must have been men in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built (the evidence being Stonehenge itself) simply because there's no ''independent'' evidence that men were in Britain at the time. This debate has gone on long enough, and I'm restoring the article, because you have argued yourself into a corner. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::If the only evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built was the simple fact that Stonehenge existed, you can, at best, state that man built Stonehenge as an unproven hypothesis. In the case of direct experimentation to test the hypothesis being impossible, a hypothesis becomes a solid scientific theory through independant evidence conforming to that hypothesis. Again, this is basic scientific practice. The fact you don't know this is more evidence, quite frankly, of your ignorance of science. As for 'arguing myself into a corner', sorry, from my point of view, it is you who have argued yourself into one - by your argument, the only way that you can revert that article and actually think it's accurate is if you genuinely think the invisible pink unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Snozuflu and the idea that we were created by Zmopugvf of the plant Xijtfbvj (just to make another one up on the spot) is, in any way, solid science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::You almost got that correct. Science is about proposing solutions based on evidence, then trying to determine if they are correct. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes, but you don't rule out potential explanations ''a priori'' just because those explanations have not been "scientifically proved". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::You missed the part about proposing solutions based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I didn't miss it at all. I agree with that part, which is why I said "yes". I've also now expanded on that above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, if you're considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence you are NOT proposing solutions based on evidence. You are proposing solutions based on imagination. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Having read this whole fascinating correspondence I have to say that Urushnor is correct. The point "Weak Atheism" makes is that there is no evidence that God exists. It goes on to suggest that - given this - we have no obligation, need, or reason to to believe in Him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: I'm ''not'' considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence! I'm considering possible explanations ''for'' the evidence, without rejecting any because they have not been independently ''proven''.

:::::::::::For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet. You look at the evidence first. Once you do that, you come up with explanations based on that evidence, then, essentially, try to disprove them by experimentation, if possible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Furthermore (and this is answering both of you), it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is no evidence for God's existence. The very fact that we exist is evidence!
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

=== A fresh start ===

Okay, let's try it this way.

:'''Example 1'''
Archaeologists find a Stonehenge-like structure in a part of the world and dated to a time where there has previously been no evidence of people having lived. Here is how three different groups would consider different options.

{| class="wikitable"
| || Christian||Weak atheist||Strong atheist
|-
| The formation was formed by nature
| colspan=3| Reject: Nature does not arrange rocks in concentric circles and stacked on each other in this manner.
|-
| The formation was created by animals
| colspan=3| Reject: The rocks are too large for most animals to handle, and animals don't arrange rocks like that.
|-
| The formation was created by aliens
| Reject: Aliens don't exist
| colspan=2| Reject: According to Occam's Razor, the next option is preferred.
|-
| The formation was created by an unknown group of humans
| colspan=3| Agreed. This is within the capabilities of humans and is the sort of thing they might do.
|-
| The formation was created by God
| Reject: No evidence of and no motive for creation by God
| Can't consider: No evidence for God's existence
| Reject: God doesn't exist
|}

Do any of the groups of scientists hold the last option with absolute certainty? No, nothing in science is considered certain. But there would be no real doubt about it. In fact, the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Remember, science cannot actually ''prove'' anything, so saying that "no-one would be able to prove this hypothesis scientifically" is axiomatic.

:In your hypothetical situation, we have one bit of evidence only - the simple fact Stonehenge exists. NO hypothesis can be confirmed when there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'. You don't know what weak atheism would say, nor strong atheism because we aren't in that situation. You assert that they would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'. I would also say that there would, in fact, be a likelihood that some Christians would actually view the fact of Stonehenge's existence as further proof of God, as who else would be able to make it pop into existence like that, with zero evidence being left behind of anyone else building it, or even living in the same landmass as it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Your reply ignores the reality, which I mentioned, that the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Scientists would ''not'' say "we don't know". This would be taken as quite sufficient evidence. There's no evidence of it "popping into existence", so no, Christians would not see it as proof of God.

:::Nope, sorry, there are quite a few Christians who believe certain things that there is actually fairly solid evidence AGAINST, so a simple lack of evidence in support is not a problem for them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Rather than a hypothetical example, I'll give you a real example. Stone artifacts, determined to be spear heads, have been found in Manitoba, and these have been dated to 10,000 to 8,000 years ago (not that I accept the dates, but that's by the way). Apart from these items, there is no evidence for humans existing there at that time. So were these tools made by God, by nature, by animals, by aliens, or by humans? According to you, the only bit of evidence is "the simple fact [the spear heads] exist. NO hypothesis can be confirmed where there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'... [I] assert that [weak atheists] would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'." Really? Well, according to the University of Manitoba web-site, it was .... humans! ("A handful of spear heads provides the only evidence of this early human presence")[http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/paleo2.html]
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::There, you're comparing apples with oranges. We know that the spearheads were created by man as we can compare them with independant evidence that very similar spearheads were created by man. In addition, we do have evidence of man in the areas surrounding the region, and there was, at the time, no barrier to man moving into that region. In your hypothetical example, Stonehenge is fairly unique and unusual (to such an extent that we still haven't actually figured out exactly what it's for) and, in your hypothetical example, the one and only piece of evidence we actually have that man was even on the same landmass was the simple fact Stonehenge existed, so there was a barrier to man simply moving into the region - it's called the sea. Now, if the simple existence of these artifacts were the one and only bit of evidence that we had of the existence of man at the time in the whole of the North American continent, and these were so strange, unusual and unknown that we simply couldn't work out what they were for, then you would be comparing apples with apples. However, that's not true. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:'''Example 2'''
Biologists find complex information-carrying structures in living things, which they name "DNA". Here is how the three different groups would consider different options.

{| class="wikitable"
| || Christian||Weak atheist||Strong atheist
|-
| DNA was formed by nature
| Reject: Inconsistent with the Bible and with scientific observation
| colspan=2| Accept: Only acceptable option
|-
| DNA was formed by animals
| colspan=3| Reject: DNA predates animals, so animals could not have formed it. Also, technology involved is beyond animals.
|-
| DNA was produced by aliens
| Reject: Aliens don't exist
| colspan=2| Reject (although a few might accept); the next option is preferred.
|-
| DNA was formed by an unknown group of humans
| colspan=3| Reject: DNA predates humans, so humans could not have formed it.
|-
| DNA was created by God
| Accept: Consistent with the Bible and with the evidence that information only comes from an intelligence. This is within His capability and is the sort of thing He might do.
| Can't consider: No evidence for God's existence
| Reject: God doesn't exist
|}

Notice the inconsistency there. In the first example, weak atheism was prepared to accept, even if tentatively, that humans were responsible ''even if there was no other evidence of humans''. In the second example, weak atheism is not even prepared to consider the possibility of God being involved, ''despite the exact same situation''. Actually, I'd lump weak atheism in with strong atheism, but I'm using your descriptions.

:Well, the 'inconsistency' is due to your assertions. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But you haven't succeeded in showing that my assertions were incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::And here we are back at your whole underlying mistake - that people must prove you wrong, rather than you proving yourself correct. In science, you have to back up what you say with evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:Something else that occurred to me about your two tables. According to what you seem to think science is, then all of the various hypotheses for both scenarios are, actually, solid science, even the hypothesis of DNA on Earth being created by an unknown group of humans, as that could be people who are, basically, humans, but from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet. The only exception to this, according to your table, is the idea that DNA is formed by nature, but even that is due to your assertion that this is 'inconsistent with scientific observation', which is, basically, wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Humans "from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet"? Er, that's "aliens".

::: Not if they're the same species. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: When I refer to DNA being produced by nature, I am, of course, talking about the ''origin'' of DNA, not about DNA being produced by living things that have DNA instructions telling those living things how to produce DNA. Given that, no, the statement is not wrong at all. DNA being produced by nature ''is'' inconsistent with scientific observations. DNA contains genetic [[information]], and no known natural mechanism produces new genetic information. Even Richard Dawkins was unable to name any examples.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/] Rather, there are known mechanisms that ''destroy'' or ''eliminate'' information. More on that below.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I remember hearing about that. You know something? The reason Dawkins was 'stumped' was because he was struggling to hold onto his temper. The reason this was the case case was that he had been told that he was being interviewed for a film, called Crossroads, that explores the relationship between science and religion. Being asked that question gave the game away that he was, in fact, being interviewed by creationists for a creationist piece of propoganda. This is because this question is so easy to actually answer that only creationists ask it, and the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to. I gave you three examples in an article below, one of which was, arguably, actually a decrease in genetic information, even though this lead to an advantageous ability. However, for a rather more definitive answer, try Down's Syndrome. In this, not just a protein, or even a gene, is added, but an entire extra chromosome. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah, yes, I thought I remembered seeing a response to that, written by Dawkins himself - here it is.[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm] [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:37, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.

:Well, you have stated repeatedly there is evidence for God. If you've actually substantiated it, you did it incredibly subtly and I missed it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps I haven't substantiated it ''in replies to you'', although I certainly have in other discussions. For one thing, it's an established principle that everything that has a beginning has a cause, which means that the natural universe must have had a cause, and as the cause of everything that is natural cannot itself be natural, then the cause must be ''supernatural'', i.e. God. For another, information is only seen to arise from intelligent beings. DNA contains genetic information, and the only candidates for intelligent beings predating DNA are God and aliens, and the aliens would have to have something equivalent to DNA, which raises the same question for the source of ''that'' information, so eventually you are back to God being the only candidate. That's just two bits of ''evidence'' (not necessarily ''proof'') for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, sorry, we're back at the 'it must be God, as we're here to talk about it' argument, just one step removed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.

:Your whole point is that you're considering possibilities, then ruling out the possibilities using evidence. It is not possible to do it this way around and claim you're proposing possibilities based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Your whole point is that, according to you, in science, you use the evidence to eliminate possibilities. If you are only using the evidence to eliminate the possibilities, what did you use to establish the possibilities you're now eliminating? It can't be the evidence, because you have to establish the possibilities before they are there to be eliminated. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.

I said that it's evidence for "God". What is "God"? "God" comes from the Old English, meaning "supreme being, deity"[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god]. It is not a name, but a ''term''.

According to the Bible, the supreme being (for which, in ''English'' translations, the term "God" is used) has the ''name'' (transliterated from the Hebrew), "YHWH". The anglicised form of this is "Jehovah". The Muslim term for the the supreme being is "Allah".

Now what is the "invisible pink unicorn"? Is it (a) a fictitious being created as a parody, or (b) a claimant to the title "supreme being"? The same question can be asked of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Snozuflu, and anything else you dream up.

Let's assume for the moment that the answer to the last question was (a). Then no, evidence for a supreme being is ''not'' evidence for a fictitious being created as a parody, as fictitious beings can't actually create anything!

Alternatively, let's assume that the answer to that question was (b). In that case, "invisible pink unicorn" is nothing more than an alternative term for "God"! As was "Allah"

So the first part of your last paragraph amounts to the following:
: "Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for God (a.k.a. Allah). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. Jehovah). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. YHWH). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the invisible pink unicorn). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the Great Snozuflu). It's also evidence for any other synonym for God that my imagination can conjure up..."
Is that ''really'' any sort of answer to my point???? Of course not!!

:Well, firstly, you seem to be wanting to duck the argument by playing semantics. Well, this is flawed as, you seem to be saying that God is a generic term for a supreme being. Well, it's not - that's god. Small 'G'. God, big 'G', is a proper noun - the name for the Christian god. Secondly, your argument seems to be 'everything is God unless I say it's not'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:I should really expand on that - you see, you're putting a false dichotomy. You're saying that something must be either (a) or (b). What if it's something else? What if the invisible pink unicorn is not a 'supreme being', but simply a quite powerful one? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a creature from another planet? An example I gave below - what if we're a cosmic lab accident? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: It's not semantics. People often use an initial capital for ''pronouns'' referring to God (see, for example, the sentence after next). That they are capitalised does ''not'' mean that they are names. The same with "God"—capitalisation does not mean that it is His ''name''. And no, my argument is based on etymology, facts of history, and logic: not on "everything is God unless I say it's not". You haven't disputed any of my argument, apart from your failed attempt regarding the capital letter, so the argument stands.

:::No, it doesn't, as what you've basically said is that, as well as using 'God' to refer to the Christian god, you can also use 'He' and 'His'. You still haven't proven, in any way, that 'God' can also be used, for example, to refer to the Great Snozuflu. Even if the claim was, in fact, that he/she/it was a 'supreme being', he/she/it would be a god, not 'God'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your point about a false dichotomy could have some validity, except that I assumed that you were using those invented names as they are normally used, not in some novel way you just decided on.

:::Well, in the case of the Great Snozuflu, what, exactly, is the normal way that term is used? I invented that term, so, in effect, the 'normal way' for that term to be used is whatever I say it is. If I decide that term is referring to a being from another planet, then that's what it refers to. If I decide it refers to a god, then it does. If I decide it refers to my pet cat, and we were created by my cat sneezing and that snot hitting a quantum subspace wave in the fabric of the space-time continuum, which catapulted it back in time, and that was the first set of microbes from which all life evolved, then it does. According to your argument, all three of those scenarios are actually solid science until someone comes up with solid evidence that disproves them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you want to use them that way, then yes, the fact that we exist ''may'' be evidence for aliens ("a creature from another planet"). But as I point out above, where did ''this'' creature come from? Ultimately, you get back to a supernatural Creator as the ultimate cause.

:::Nope, sorry. Ultimately, you get back to a cause. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it must be a 'supernatural Creator'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::So even if you are correct, I'm still correct! Further, "evidence" can support more than one explanation. So our existence being evidence for aliens does not preclude our existence ''also'' being evidence for God.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::But we're back at the 'it must be evidence for God, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it' argument, which is no argument whatsoever. The question being asked is 'how did we come to exist?' You're saying the answer is, 'we exist, so it must be that God created us.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'll actually have to double check, but I think the mechanism for creating this genetic information is technically not part of evolution, so your second sentence is correct, but your first is not. If I wrong in this, then both your sentences are incorrect. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I've checked, and the answer seems to be that it depends on exactly what you mean by evolution. If you mean the entire process (which is the definition used by most, if not all, evolutionary scientists), then, yes, the mechanism for creating this genetic information is part of evolution, and thus your second sentence is wrong, in addition to your first one. If you restrict evolution to only the mechanism of the selection of the traits that are changed from one generation to the next, then, no, it's not included, and thus it is only your first sentence that is incorrect, but you miss out that evolution does not need to create genetic information as another mechanism does this. This is backed up by the fact that this has been observed to happen. [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html Here], for example, is an article detailing a few.
:The other point, of course, is, even if you were completely and totally correct to say that evolution was incapable of creating genetic information, and thus incapable of creating us, the argument for our mere existence backing up God, when it comes down to it, is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we must have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Snozuflu because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we are the result of a hyper-advanced alien race's lab experiment that went wrong, otherwise we wouldn'r be here to talk about it, etc, etc, etc. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I mean microbe-to-man evolution, and yes, the creation of new genetic information is ''supposed to be'' part of this process. The problem is, ''it doesn't work''!

::: You're not getting the distinction. Some people (generally not scientists) think that evolution is only concerned with the actual mechanism whereby genetic features change from generation to generation. This means that this mechanism takes existing genetic features and alters them. Evolution is normally regarded by scientists as also including the mechanism whereby these genetic features arose in the first place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: As for the "observations" backing up the idea that mutations can create information, let's have a look at them:
::* "''people ... acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood''", "''Creationists ... dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.''": Okay, that's the claim and counter-claim. How do they refute the creationist claim? They don't—they move on to the next claim!

:::I'll give you a clue - evolution states that advantageous genetic features arise and are selected for, and thus spread through that selection process. Guess what the ability to digest milk as an adult is, in the circumstances detailed in the article? Depending on how you define 'information', that means that is either an increase in information (as the body gains the information not to eliminate the ability to digest milk) or a decrease in information, as the mechanism for this is a situation whereby the body fails to produce the enzyme to trigger the elimination of this ability. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::* "''a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?''": Er, no. Simply ''suggesting'' that an increase in information was the cause does not make it so.

:::You're missing the point. They know the cause - a change in gene activity. The results of this change is the development of a more complex heart, which is exactly the kind of thing evolution requires. This more complex heart also requires more information in the genetic sequence - the information to create two chambers, not one. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::* "''Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA ...''": So a mutation causes an ''existing'', but unused protein to be put to use. I can't tell much about this one, but it doesn't appear very convincing.

:::So, what 'information' would a completely non-working protein be? If God created it, the only 'information' would be 'I can't create very well, as I left all sorts of useless crap in the genetic code'. This mutation adds information by taking a useless piece of protein and adding it to a working protein, thus creating a different protein. Again, exactly what evolution needs to work, especially as the part you lopped off that sentence is, 'which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: And that's it. Three examples, presumably the best they could come up with, and none of them stack up.

:::Well, in short, that is an article detailing three instances of exactly the kind of changes that the Theory of Evolution predicted way back before the existence of genes and genetic code was even known, and you're still saying that evolution is impossible and cannot happen. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: "''the argument for our mere existence backing up God ... is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.''": Yes, you could say that. But just like atheists dismiss that argument about God, I can dismiss it about evolution. If you want to believe ''on faith'' that evolution can do this, then I can, ''with at least equal legitimacy'', believe it about God, and you can't reject me doing so, and be consistent. To put it more bluntly, calling that faith in evolution "science" and my faith in God "religion" as though the two were somehow qualitatively different—as so many do—is dishonest.

:::Thank you - you have just defeated your own argument. If you remember, it was you who originally advanced that our mere existence was evidence for God. I merely pointed out that by the same standards, it was also evidence for evolution, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible pink unicorn, etc, etc, etc. By my standards, not yours, this is not evidence for any of them, including evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: But there ''is'' a difference. That is, claiming that evolution can create new information is ''inconsistent'' with our ''observations'' that information only comes form an intelligence, but claiming that God can do it is ''consistent'' with those same observations. It still isn't proof, and ultimately is taken on faith. Are you therefore agreeing that your view is a faith position?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, because your assertion that 'information can only come from intelligence' is wrong. I'll give you an example. Go to the number pad on your computer keyboard. Close your eyes and type in four numbers completely at random. I'll do the same - 4337. The result is information, in my case, the number four thousand three hundred and thirty-seven. Randomness is, in fact, capable of producing information. It may not be useful information, but, guess what? Not everything in any creature's genetic sequence is actually useful. In fact, it's fairly typical that there's plenty that's not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Incidentally, you touched on 'my position' being faith-based. Well, I am actually an agnostic. However, I am an agnostic from a philosophical position - there is no guarantee that science will be able to give all the answers to the whole of existence, and there is no argument that persuades me about any particular religion. Science, however, is based on evidence, and there is no objective evidence of God, or any other god-like being, so you can have faith that God exists from a religious standpoint, and you can say that God might exist from a philosophical standpoint, but you cannot base any science on the idea God exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Typing in a number into a computer requires a keyboard/computer and a keyboard/computer require intelligence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're confusing the mechanism for recording the number with the number itself. The number itself was derived from a purely random process. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A raindrop falling into a lake causes a ripple. That ripple contains information on the force with which the raindrop hit the lake. Information from a completely unintelligent source. Information comes from everything and anything.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:08, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I suggest looking at the concept of [[Intelligent design|specified complexity]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:17, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Basically a claim of incredulity. Just because the information in DNA leads to a specific result (the protein and it's properties), is not to say that the drip of water doesn't, it leads to the ripple, which may lead to a number of specific results. The drop is simpler because it cannot replicate itself. Imperfect replication is the key to DNA's success. The selfish gene, it is indeed a truly brilliant theory (though in truth I don't think you could claim it even as a theory, it is simple logic). In short my point with the previous comment was simply to show that just because a system contains information, it most certainly does not mean that system, or information, was made by an intelligence.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:31, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionism

2008-04-30T20:57:27Z

Urushnor: /* A fresh start */

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However, the evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' (they make a positive assertion that there is no God) do, in fact have a world view, whereas the 'weak atheists' (they say there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him) rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** The world view is based on the evidence, as is science. Thus, the world view and the science agree.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].
===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Evolutionism

2008-04-18T15:59:21Z

Urushnor: Altered it to be slightly more accurate

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However, the evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' (they make a positive assertion that there is no God) do, in fact have a world view, whereas the 'weak atheists' (they say there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him) rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** The world view is based on the evidence, as is science. Thus, the world view is irrelevant to the science.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].
===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Talk:Evolutionism

2008-04-18T15:58:16Z

Urushnor: 'Weak Atheism'

Evolutionism

2008-04-18T15:58:12Z

Urushnor: See Talk

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However, the evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' (they make a positive assertion that there is no God) do, in fact have a world view, whereas the 'weak atheists' (they say there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him) rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** The world view is based on the evidence, as is science. Thus, the science comes ''before'' the world view.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].
===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Evolutionism

2008-04-18T00:11:34Z

Urushnor:

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a [[theory of evolution]]''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html Mark Brumley, Evolution and the Pope]</ref>

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
* God exists (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the world view.

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal God'''
* There is no personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

'''Personal God'''
* There is a personal/involved God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However, the evolutionists who are 'strong atheists' (they make a positive assertion that there is no God) do, in fact have a world view, whereas the 'weak atheists' (they say there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him) rely on science.

'''Strong Atheism'''
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism (science)|naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.

'''Weak Atheism'''
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** The world view relies on the evidence, so the science comes ''before'' the world view.

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist, <ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", S.J. Gould [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html], also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html]</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>S.F. Chronicle, 1981 [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL]</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception,
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].
===Religiosity and the Cult of Personality Surrounding Charles Darwin===
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''[[R.L. Wysong]]''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Naturalism]]

Darwinism

2008-04-17T19:37:23Z

Urushnor:

'''Darwinism''', named for the nineteenth-century English naturalist [[Charles Darwin]], holds that [[natural selection]] is the directive or creative force of [[evolution]]. <ref> [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Darwinism]</ref>

The [[theory of natural selection]] is one of two major evolutionary theories advanced by Darwin, the other being the [[theory of descent with modification]].<ref> [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Darwinism]</ref>

The modern version of the [[theory of evolution]], based on Darwin's original theory, is sometimes called "[[Neo-Darwinism]]". Some people argue the terms 'Darwinism' and 'Neo-Darwinism' are inaccurate and/or pointless, as 'Darwinists' or 'Neo-Darwinists' are, basically, everyone who accepts the Theory of Evolution (with 'Neo-Darwinists' accepting the modern version, more commonly referred to as the 'modern evolutionary synthesis'), so to say that these people are 'Darwinists' would be like saying those who accept Newton's Laws of Motion or Thermodynamics are 'Newtonists', or those that accept the General Theory of Relativity are 'Einsteinists'.

==See also==
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Evolutionism]]

[[category:science]][[category:evolution]]

Video games

2008-04-15T22:14:53Z

Urushnor: Clarified a few things

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by [[children]] and [[teen]]s. A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Some video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development, especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[Conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games, such as [[Grand Theft Auto]], are very violent, sexually explicit and feature [[criminal]] behavior. [[Law]]s have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced{{fact}} or overturned by judges due to the First Amendment.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Some people argue that violent video games cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed, but such a link has yet to be conclusively proven.

In the [[United States|USA]], the majority of games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in Particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a self-manned crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, are rather used to tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]] and the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] games, in particular, use God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion, in some way, include [[Final Fantasy]], [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Black and White]], [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

==Popular Video games==
*[[Final Fantasy]] - A very popular RPG series in both the United States and Japan. Most games contain violence, sexuality and [[occult|occultic]] themes, some contain references to [[homosexuality]], [[suicide]], teen pregnancy, transvestism and (although rarely) negativity towards [[religion]].
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - Highly violent. 16-18 and up depending on country.
*[[Half-life|Half-Life]] - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation.
*[[Harvest Moon]] - Farm Life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry. Until recent incarnations, games had no violence. Rated E [6+] to T [13+].
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*[[Mass Effect]] - A science fiction RPG rated "M" for blood, language, partial nudity, sexual themes, and violence.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} They are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, family friendly, fun game for everyone.
*[[Portal]] - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game using the same game engine as Half-Life 2 involving teleportation.
*[[Resident Evil]] - Survival Horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks. Copious blood, gore, and violence present. As of date, all games in series have been rated M [17+].
*[[The Sims]] - A light-hearted life simulator with mild violence and some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[Super Smash Brothers]] - Series of Nintendo Animated fighting games. Follows no specific story, mixing characters from different franchises in wide environments. Animated, no-blood violence.
*[[Soul Calibur]] - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two weapons, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control of the weapons.
*[[Street Fighter]] - One-on-one [[martial arts]] fighting game series, where a player selects one of various martial artists and battles other players or against computer-controlled characters. Since this game has mildly revealing dresses for the female fighters and sometimes a little blood during fights, though nowhere as over-the-top as Mortal Kombat, this game is recommended for teens.
*[[Super Mario Bros.]] - Side-scrolling platform game series by [[Nintendo]]. Players play as Mario and Luigi, two Italian-American plumber brothers from [[Brooklyn]], who explore the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser Koopa. This game has no strong violence and no sexual content, so it is suitable for all ages.
*[[Tomb Raider]] - Series of games following the adventures of Lara Croft. All have been rated "T" (Teen) due to mild violence.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Doom (video game series)

2008-04-15T22:14:49Z

Urushnor: Clarified lack of evidence for Columbine link

'''Doom''' ([[ESRB]] ratings: M) is a first-person shooting [[violent video games|violent video game]] series, it was created by [[id software]] and is one of the most well known of its genre due to its innovative graphics. It features vast amounts of [[violence]], [[blood]], [[demon]]ic imagery and [[gore]]. It has also been accused of causing the events at [[Columbine High School]] and that one of the shooters practiced for the event by creating Doom levels resembling the halls of the school with monsters to represent classmates and teachers, though, to date, no-one has actually presented any evidence these levels ever existed, and is widely regarded as being a myth.

There are three games in the series as well as a series of [[expansion pack]]s.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]

[[Category: Video Games]]

Liberal

2008-04-03T20:45:19Z

Urushnor: Examples given incorrect, and entry only added as a result of these 'examples', so entry now removed

[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|350px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

A '''liberal''' can support many of the following political positions and practices:

* A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]] 
* Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Implimentation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching "comprehensive" sex-ed programs instead of [[abstinence]]-only programs.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
== Liberalism in North America today ==
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>
*Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]
*[[Westboro Baptist Church]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==

* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Hollywood values]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[:Category:Liberal activists|Liberal activists]]
* [[Liberal arts]]
* [[Liberal Arts college]]
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal deceit]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal denial]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hate speech]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Liberal ideology]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberalism and art]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Myths]]
* [[Liberal obfuscation]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal quotient]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style|Liberal Style]]
* [[Liberal tools]]
* [[Liberal tricks]]
* [[Liberal values]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Professor values]]

==Further Information==

* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Talk:Liberal

2008-04-03T20:32:04Z

Urushnor: /* Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you cerraainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

Urushnor: /* Edit war */

Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces

2008-03-22T01:18:48Z

Urushnor: /* Edit war */

Uhhh... criticism of issues within the game isn't allowed? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:32, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Sure it is, but snarky, unsourced (love the hypocrisy of that) edits like yours aren't. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::I think I may have misinterpreted that statement, but... Sir, are you accusing me of making nothing but snarky, hypocritcal edits? For that matter, how is it hypocritical? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::That edit was snarky and hypocritical, yes. It is snarky because it was made simply to be obnoxious and hypocritical because you questioned unsourced material in the [[Video game]] article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::Ah. Gotcha. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then. I shall read more carefully next time. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:There is a large and well referenced section on controversy and criticism. All you added was unreferenced parody. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::All of which focuses on claims made before the game came out. It wasn't parody. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Wait, what am I talking about? The last sentence was. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::So you freely admit you learned nothing from your recent block and are continuing to edit disruptively? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I've edited the 'controversy and criticism' section to be a bit more accurate. With the exception of Max Blumenthal's blog, the cited sources do not, in fact, criticise the game - they report others criticising the game, and also give quotes from Left Behind Games refuting that criticism. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:46, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Jinxmchue, I do not know why you keep reverting my edit. You seem to be trying to say that all of the complaints have been addressed by patches. This is simply not the case. You provided a [http://www.lbgstore.com/lebetrfoupcd.html URL] that would allow me to purchase an add-on CD that would update the game with the Tribulation Forces expansion. Well, that's a paid-for expansion, not a free patch. If you were directing me to the patchnotes for the various patches to the base game underneath that, if you compare that with the complaints voiced in the various sources in the article, this simply proves that not all the complaints have been addressed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:28, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:"Many" and "most" also mean "more than one and less than all of them." Why not use those words (which actually would be more accurate since there are very few issues left (if any) regarding the original criticisms)? My link in my summary was to provide an idea of the number of issues Left Behind Games has addressed with their upgrades. The list is dozens of items long. How many more issues do you think are left to address? And despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well, if you were saying that 'many' or 'most' is more accurate, why did YOU not change it to that, instead of reverting it to remove any word that suggested not all the complaints had been addressed? I would actually say that 'some' is more accurate anyway, as whilst quite a few of the complaints have been addressed, it seems to be some of the ones that aren't are actually the most severe ('lousy controls' and the poor graphics for two examples). As to your statement, 'despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed', sorry, but yes, it does. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:37, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Complaints vs. patches ==

I intend to write up something (for Talk at least) comparing the complaints about the game to the various issues that were covered by the patches. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Already done that.

:This is the list of complaints in the various reviews in the article:
#Lousy Controls
#Too much micromanagement
#Bad AI
#Poor graphics and art design
#Lack of single-player skirmish mode
#Slow multiplayer
#Watered-down storyline
#All the units look the same
#Repetitive gameplay
#Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
#Borderline racism (quite a number of the 'bad guys' have Arab, Indian, African, etc, names and appearances, but mysteriously lose this when they're 'recruited' and become Caucasian)
#Bad level design (sections of the city blocked off for no good reason, for example)
#Frequent crashes and lock-ups
#Seems to give a mixed message (the subject matter and tone of the game is very righteous, but then lets you play as the Antichrist in multiplayer)
#Poor quality of voice-acting
#Too much advertising in the game

Complaints addressed in the patches:

#Too much micromanagement (eased but not fully addressed)
#Bad AI (unclear whether all isuues were addressed or not)
#Poor graphics and art design (partially addressed by improving the shadows on 'high end systems')
#Slow multiplayer
#Frequent crashes and lock-ups (not clear whether completely fixed)

Complaints remaining unaddressed:

#Lousy controls
#Lack of single-player skirmish mode
#Watered-down storyline
#All the units look the same
#Repetitive gameplay
#Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
#Borderline racism
#Bad level design
#Seems to give a mixed message
#Poor quality of voice-acting
#Too much advertising in the game

Issues fixed in the patches NOT mentioned in the reviews:

#Multiplayer Chat tab enabled. You can now chat with players online before you join a game.
#Female Recruiters added.
#Mission 2 - Teddy can now visit the finish zone at any time without issues.
#Mission 4 - Teddy can now speak to Mary.
#Mission 6 - The first 7 friends can be trained and the mission will now end upon bringing the final 10 friends to the Chapel (provided they are still all on your side).
#Mission 8 - An extra building is available to be acquired.
#Demons can withstand heavy physical attacks. Attack them with good spiritual warfare.
#Various playbalancing and fixes including sound transitions and multiplayer server list.
#Multiplayer Buddy List enabled.
#Enhanced join server screen with game parameters listed.
#GameSpy profile integration. Create a profile or use an existing one to create your buddy list.
#3 New Multiplayer Maps including upgraded units at the start of the game for quick skirmish action.
#Vocal Warnings for events.
#Improved Sound System compatibility and sound playback.
#Improved LGBHelp system for better support to our users, including an auto-config based on system specs.
#Various mission playbalancing and fixes.
#When logged in with a GameSpy Profile ID, Gold and Silver users will have auto buddy list requests and their buddy’s multiplayer games will be listed first.
#Buddy List graphical enhancements.
#Winning point limit (if applicable) is shown during a multiplayer game.
#Improved navigation for multiplayer game creation.
#Demons are now displayed in a dark grey color.
#4X4 Skirmish map timer fixed.
#Improved support for multiplayer hosting – UPnP support added.
#Chat filter implemented.
#Added more stats to the end of a multiplayer game, including an overall summary of all players.
#Allied units display as such when clicked in multiplayer.
#Multiplayer skirmish maps are easier to find on the map selection screen.
#Voice of God and Angels implemented for evil actions.
#Mission 4 - The Chapel is pinged when Mary is active.
#Mission 19 - Defending time shortened.
#Mission 23 - Phantom enemy vehicles removed.
#Mission 32 – Buck can get his disguise upon mission start.
#Mission 36 - Defending time shortened.
#Mission 37 – GCP Camp now pinged.
#Many other text revisions and mission improvements
#AUTO recruit improved even further – Evil units that turn neutral are now auto recruited as well.
#Building Icons added to the game screen for easier ID of user’s buildings.
#Right mouse to follow a friendly unit implemented (Alt-Right Click still works too).
#Multiple Helicopter spawning issue fixed.
#Replay Load VO overlap fixed.
#The Scroll description has been revised.
#Spiritual influence now does two times damage to demons.
#Alt-Tab Camera issue fixed.
#No longer able to attempt to follow enemy or neutral vehicles.
#Event noise modified.
#Menu enhancements providing more intuitive feedback to the user.
#A military unit must be in a military vehicle in order for the vehicle to fire.
#Sat-Com special ability has been enhanced, now a triangle will display in the minimap and H will display the type of building in the main screen.
#Firearm range increased slightly.
#Maximum number of items in inventory for each type is now 2.
#Minor gameplay tweaks and unit balances.
#Tutorial 2 - Allows for different combination of units to make the camp available.
#Tutorial 3 - Fixed intermittant crash after Musician was trained.
#Fixed crash on start occurring with the mutltiplayer enhancement pack version for some older machines.
#Tutorial 2 – Auto recruit is taught instead of manual recruit taking advantage of the auto recruit improvements for ease of use.
#Additional auto-configuration based on system specs for Intel based graphic adapters (Note: these adapters are not officially supported, but may work).
#Forfeit button added for multiplayer games.
#Gamespy buddy authorization pop-up reminder added.
#Multiplayer hints describing functionality of each menu button including expanded buddy list explanations.
#Minimap building filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of building when activated. Make finding types of building much easier.
#Owned buildings now display in the players color at all times for easy recognition.
#Evil Hero revision to Enigma Leader.
#Chat window multiple selection from menu fixed.
#Gamespy creation or login will display a not valid warning if it has a space in the name.
#Password protected multiplayer games are now displayed with a lock on the join screen.
#Version number of server’s game is now displayed on the join screen when a game is selected.
#Multiplayer skirmish maps have been rebalanced to be even at the start of the game. Evil used to have 1 extra unit.
#New clue music.
#Incorrect VO not playing anymore on level 4 load screen.
#Mouse handedness is taken from system mouse settings and is no longer clickable from options menu. If you want to change it, use the Windows Control Panel/Mouse.
#Gamespy profile file no longer displays password for added protection.
#Screen flickering fixed when leaving a multiplayer game someone quit out of early.
#Lengthy email address truncating fixed on Gamespy create window.
#Point limit and time limit now display on multiplayer replays.
#Correct message now appears to the server when the client quits the game early in a 2 player game.
#VO pauses when the pause key is pressed.
#Gamespy Voice Chat muting options. Players can be muted in the game lobby and with the Chat options screen from the in-game menu. Note: Enemy players will be muted upon starting the game. Note: Port 31322 UDP must be opened to enjoy voice chatting.
#Microphone Volume control and testing capability within the Audio tab of the Options window.
#Major UI overhaul - new graphical enhancements and improvements.
#Collision improvements between neutral units and vehicles.
#Multiplayer hint toggle is now in the Game tab of the Options window.
#Minimap unit filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of unit when activated. It makes finding a type of unit much easier.
#Unit and Building selection icons. One click selection of a unit type and one click goto building type functionality added to the interface.
#Units inside building displayed. When you mouse over a building with units inside, the unit icons will display on screen.
#Recruiting fix for fast walking neutrals - the unit will now stop to be recruited.
#To/From voice chat options included. Now you have the ability to choose who hears your voice chat.
#Text chat muting. You can now mute text chat from specific players in game.
#Fixed loud noise upon start on some machines.
#Various mission scripting enhancements for additional audio sequences.
#Revised Tutorial 1 by adding a neutral unit and an evil unit as visual aids.
#Revised Left Handed VO and text in the tutorials to be more clear.
#Revised missions 22, 31, and 35 to decrease difficulty.
#National and International Banks now have sound when clicked.
#A Friend was added to the start of Mission 27.
#Revised missions 17, 20, 23, and 30 to decrease difficulty.
[[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not quite. Thanks for trying to beat me to the punch, though, in order to push your own agenda against this game. Oh, and I particularly liked the inclusion of "Misogynistic 50s-style sexism" and "Borderline racism." The only patch that's going to address those complaints is the one that works on the software between the complainers' ears. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Well, actually, I can think of a couple of ways the developers can patch in something to address those complaints, but that's pretty much irrelevant - you were originally saying ALL the complaints had been addressed by the patches, which simply isn't the case. As for your comment about 'pushing my own agenda', does this mean you are claiming the above points listed as not being in the reviews aren't in the patchnotes? Or are you saying that those points are, in fact, mentioned in the reviews? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I will give DanH a chance to explain how he thinks the above information 'vindicates' Jinxmchue, so I will leave the article in it's current form. If I receive no answer, however, I will alter it to be accurate to what the above seems to indicate - that the patches fix dozens of issues, including some of the issues raised by the complaints in the reviews. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Threats now? I would really reconsider that if I were you. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, statement of intent. DanH has now seemingly understood what I was saying, so I've redone the edit. The relevant passage, in it's old form, seemed to say that all the fixes in the patches, without exception, were as a direct result of the complaints in the reviews, which, in light of the above, seems blindingly obvious is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, yet again, you edit the article, inserting incorrect comments. If you remove the 'non-technical' complaints from the list above, that is still 5 addressed (and not even all of those completely) out of 12. That is not 'most'. As for the perceived racism and sexism, the developers could patch it so that both sides have units with African, Arabic, Indian, etc names and appearances (or, at the very least, the units which do have these features don't mysteriously become Caucasian when they're 'recruited'), and that the units are known by the same title whether they be male or female, instead of it being a 'Recruiter', for example, if they're male, and a 'Female Recruiter' if they're female, as if this is somehow something different. As such, your statement that this cannot be patched is blatently your own opinion, or simply wrong, or both. Take your pick. As for complaints about the game's 'theology', as far as I can see, there were none. The closest that came to this was one review said that the game gave mixed messages by being very righteous in tone and content, but then lets you play as the Antichrist. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is your ''personal opinion'' that is being used as a source to defend the use of "some." But the point is moot now as I have just added a reference which states that the game is fully patched (the version included with "Tribulation Forces" is the same version as the latest update for the original game). End of discussion. Point. Set. Match. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::Erm, relevant section from your source:
::::'''What is included in this expansion?'''

::::Besides getting a fully patched version of Eternal Forces, you get five new story line missions for the second chapter, Tribulation Forces. There is a new single and multiplayer game mode call skirmish. In this mode you choose a map, what team you want to play, and how many allies or enemies you want. To win you have to earn and maintain a certain number of points. To gain points you have to win over neutrals to your side and build up your forces.

::::There is a new group you can play, The American Militia. This is an army that is neutral spiritual wise and they are allies with the Tribulation Forces and combat the Anti-Christ’s army. With the American Militia there is no peaceful way to neutralize the enemy. Fortunately, when you do kill them, there is no blood.''

::This does not say there are no issues remaining - it means the version of Eternal Forces you get has all the patches so far released already applied. Try reading and understanding your own sources. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:23, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I should add - I think your accusation of 'my opinion being used to defend the use of ''some''' is particularly ironic, given that it appears very clear that you have been trying to impose your opinion that this game is absolutely excellent and cannot have any valid complaints levelled against it on this article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh, please. "Fully patched" means "fully patched." You are applying unprovable standards to that phrase which cannot be verified. Continue to try to push your disproven agenda and you actions will be reported. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:36, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Do a Google search for 'fully patched'. You'll get hits like [http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=254 this], [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-exploit-blows-by-fully-patched.html this], [http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/09/new_attack_compromises_fullypatched_ie_browsers.html this], [http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/0046258 this], [http://securitywatch.eweek.com/microsoft_windows/driveby_exploit_plants_trojans_on_fully_patched_iewindows_systems.html this], [http://www.geek.com/fully-patched-firefox-browser-has-extensions-vulnerability/ this], [http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6230 this], [http://www.2-spyware.com/news/post243.html this], [http://digg.com/tech_news/New_exploit_blows_by_fully_patched_Windows_XP_systems this] and [http://virtualization.sys-con.com/read/166894.htm this]. That's just a few samples from the first 2 or 3 pages that most effectively prove my point - which is that you are utterly and completely wrong. 'Fully patched' does not mean 'no issues left', it means 'all patches so far applied'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I've done a compromise (again) - I've kept your edit, but altered it to be accurate, in light of the above, and moved your source to a more appropriate place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:55, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Reviews ==

I believe this section could be better. Aspects that are said to be poor by some reviews are said to be superior by other reviews below. We want to make it easy for our readers to get a feel as to how the game plays. It's best to just record information that is agreed upon. Also, the line that indicates the product suffered from "bugs... crashes" is misleading. Virutally all new products suffer from bugs and crashes. The question is what makes the game different, and, of course, what is it like after its patches?

:Going by a couple of the reviews, this game suffered more than most from bugs and crashes. Gamespot, for example, reported that, 'Crashes are such a frequent occurrence that it seems like you've got maybe 50/50 odds between a level or a save loading properly and the game freezing up with a sound loop. Sometimes it also hard locks Windows in these circumstances, forcing a system reboot. This was even a problem for us during automatic restarts after changing the in-game resolution. The only way we could change any of the default visual settings was to manually shut down and restart the game, because letting it restart on its own always locked up our system and necessitated a reboot.' As to what extent the patches fixed thing like this, that isn't clear. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I would also suggest using the opportunity of the article protection to reach wording that both of you can agree with instead of reverting. Your differences appeared to be minor, and there was no reason to force Dan to intervene and lock the article over a small difference that you should have been able to solve in other ways. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may. As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual (it's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues), and, for another example, the implication that the Game Revolution review was poor due to religious reasons, despite the fact the reviewer specifically makes the point he believes in the freedom of people to believe what they like (and his corresponding freedom to believe they're all nuts), and actually cites various gameplay, graphical and technical reasons for giving the game a poor rating. That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however. It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse, so, in my opinion, it should be left as is, or that sentence removed entirely, and the first sentence of that paragraph reworded to 'Some of the complaints in the initial reviews of the game...'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::<sigh> Well, your very first sentence there shows us exactly who is the one pushing their agenda. The only "agreement" or "compromise" that you want is the one that favors your biased view. I've actually provided a reference that says the game is fully patched. Your "only some of the issues were addressed" is based on... what? Your say-so and nothing more. Hrm... Reference vs. your say-so. Which is more trustworthy? And the article is hardly "slightly biased in the game's favour." It has presented both sides from the beginning. Oh, and I like your oh-so humble "It's less biased now that ''I'' started editing it! Dun-da-da-DA!" bit. Give me a flipping break! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, by the way, this is CONSERVApedia, not WIKIpedia, so get used to the articles having bias against your point of view. Either that or leave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinx, do I need to tell you to play nice again? Anyone is allowed to edit conservapedia, and you are in no position to tell people to leave. Please behave! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::I wasn't telling him to leave. I was saying that he'd better get used to Conservapedia's conservative slant (duh!) being against his point of view and if he doesn't, then he should (not must) leave. I was suggesting a course of action, not making a demand. In fact, I didn't even need to suggest that option because he probably would find himself unwittingly made to leave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinx, for your claim of 'fully patched', see the section immediately above this. 'Fully patched' does not mean what you obviously think it means. As for what I base the idea that not all issues have been addressed, again, that is clearly laid out in the section above. So far, all you have done is assert that you are right and I am wrong, nothing more. Conversely, I am putting what the '''cited references in the article''' say, not my own personal opinion, and I didn't even put those references in, so how you can say that it is ME pushing an agenda, is, quite frankly, a total mystery. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... "Fully patched" doesn't actually mean "fully patched," but "not fully/only partially patched?" Because YOU (and only you) say so? And does "black" mean "white" and "up" mean "down," too? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jinx, did you, as I said, actually do a Google search for the term? Here, I've [http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%40fully+patched%27&meta=&btnG=Google+Search done one for you]. Go through those, and count how many times you can see that 'fully patched' is definitely used to mean 'there are no issues left to be addressed'. What I have stated as the meaning of 'fully patched' is the NORMAL USAGE OF THE TERM. It would be more correct to say that YOU are claiming that it means 'no issues left to be addressed' because that is what YOU claim it means, and no-one else. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yeah, I read your arguments about what "fully patched" means and dismissed them as utterly ridiculous. How exactly does the fact that some hackers found a new way past Windows security reflect at all on either the term "fully patched" or "Eternal Forces?" The issues are so completely dissimilar that I find it difficult to believe that even you cannot see it. Windows was fully patched until the hackers worked to find another exploit. So Microsoft will issue a patch for that and the program will once again be fully patched. That they did not have a patch for this new issue before it happened (that'd be one heck of a trick if they did!) does not mean it wasn't fully patched. "Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit/bug/whatever that was known at the time the article was written, but still using the term 'fully patched' to describe Windows XP/Internet Explorer/whatever other software it was talking about. Indeed, if you look at some of the hits that I didn't point out, what do you get? Things like ones talking about World of Warcraft 'fully patched' to version 2.3. If you read the [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/test-realm-patchnotes.html patch notes] for the upcoming 2.4 patch, you see several fixes, and I can tell you some of those are issues that have been known about for a while. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Again, that this new exploit came out does not change the fact that the program was fully patched. And this issue is completely unlike "Eternal Forces." There are no hackers working to break into the "Eternal Forces" program. If there was no exploit created for Windows, what then? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on with this argument. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::No, according to YOUR definition of 'fully patched', at the time the articles were written, the various bits of software they are talking about were NOT 'fully patched', yet the articles still call them 'fully patched'. Face it, Jinx, you are simply wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::"My" definition of "fully patched" is taken from basic, straight-forward usage of the English language. Whatever weird definition you are using (in which "fully patched" means "not fully patched") is not going to be understood by the general public. And it was ONE article written RECENTLY (January) which calls the version of "Eternal Forces" which is included with its sequel (and is the same version as the original game with all patches) "fully patched." You're the one who is wrong and I'm tired of your idiotic, senseless arguments. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::You have provided ONE article where the term 'fully patched' is used in reference to Eternal Forces, as supposed proof that Eternal Forces has no issues remaining with it. To back that up, all you have done is assert that 'fully patched' means that 'there are no issues remaining', and repeated that 'fully patched means fully patched', like it's some kind of mantra. In comparison, I have provided multiple articles where the term 'fully patched' is being used to refer to software that clearly does have issues remaining, and, indeed, asked you to simply do a Google search for the term (and even done one for you, and linked it) and count how many times the term is clearly used in the way you claim. You appear to simply refuse to do that. As for your definition of 'fully patched' being taken from 'basic, straight-forward usage of the English language', well, let's just put it this way - I fail to see how the definition of 'the full range of available patches have been applied' does not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:51, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I should also point out that you keep repeating 'fully patched means fully patched', like that actually means something. Sorry, it doesn't. If you have fundamentally misunderstood what 'fully patched' actually means, and are therefore trying to apply it incorrectly, then all you're doing is misusing a phrase twice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::It does mean something despite your desire for it to mean something else or nothing. You are trying to argue that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched," which is nonsensical. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: How clear do I have to say it? If you are getting the meaning of 'fully patched' wrong, then simply repeating the phrase twice is, indeed, meaningless. If I claimed that 'religion' meant 'a particular way of passing wind', then tried to back that up by simply repeating 'religion means religion' several times, you'd view my argument as non-existant and stupid (and quite rightly so). That, basically, is what you're doing. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I should also add that your claim of the article 'presenting both sides from the start' is questionable to say the least. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&direction=next&oldid=393348#Reviews Here] is the relevant section before I started editing it. Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else (even though if you actually read the one [http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind review] actually quoted there, well, that's the Game Revolution review, which I've talked about above, and one thing I left out is that one of the reasons it actually marks the game down for is that it 'wastes a good premise'. That hardly sounds like 'religious bias' to me). What's the next diff? Me clarifying there was more than religious reasons for criticising the game. The one after that? You reverting my edit, claiming that my point has nothing to do with the subject, even though that section is called 'Reviews', and I'm quoting directly from the same review. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Quoting you:
:::::''"Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else[.]"''
::::Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! I used the word "some" just like you! Quoting me:
:::::''"Some of the reviews were more about the reviewers' personal bias against religion in general or evangelical Christianity specifically."''
::::See? Some, not all. SOME, not ALL. Man, you have a serious problem with what does or does not imply something or other, don't you? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, some of the reviews. Not all the reviews gave a low rating. Now, if you had said, 'some of the negative reviews', you might have a point. But you didn't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Honestly, your arguments getting more and more stupid. Does it really need to be "some of the negative reviews" instead of "some of the reviews?" The latter is not incorrect or inaccurate despite what you erroneously think.

::::::: ....except in the way it implies that the 'some' of the reviews it's talking about is the negative ones. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Besides, how do we know that those who gave positive reviews don't have personal biases against religion which they simply did not put into the reviews? We don't. Adding the word "negative" to the sentence is unnecessary and ridiculous, and in fact would introduce bias against the negative reviews. I thought were supposedly against bias. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::So, what you're saying is that you're free to make any ridiculous assertation you like, and it is up to me to provide evidence you're wrong, rather than you actually providing evidence you're correct? Sorry, doesn't work that way - if you make a claim, you have to prove it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, have any of you played the game? Reviews are interesting, but I wouldn't mind some firsthand knowledge either. How does it really play? For instance the first Age of Empires could also go slow during huge battle scenes, but it was still an excellent game. And, I would be interested in how it plays after patches more than problems it had at first. While initial shortcomings can be mentioned as a footnote, what our readership will really want to know is what could they expect if they played it themselves in the present? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:Go to my user page, find my "shameless plug for my blog," and scroll about a quarter of the way down my blog to my latest post about the game (including links to my previous posts). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting reading. Thing is, it seems to confirm that you are pushing your opinion of the game, instead of relying on objective facts. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It does no such thing and you know it. The only thing I'm pushing is the truth, which you are rejecting based upon your own pushing of your opinion. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, just ask yourself this - who is it that's disagreeing with the cited sources in the article, even the ones he put in himself? Who is it that's actually providing evidence to back up what he's saying, rather than merely asserting that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong? I'll give you a hint - the answer to the first question is NOT 'Urushnor', and the answer to the second is NOT 'Jinxmchue'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I wish to reiterate again that whatever form the article ultimately takes, that there are no winners or losers here. You have both provided valuable information that has improved the article beyond what it could have been had you not contributed and both of you are held in high regard for your work and insights. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

Can someone explain, in simple, non-ad hominem terms, what this edit war is about? It looks to me like you are moving one citation back and forth between paragraphs. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:11, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree gentlemen that this seems silly. You both could be using the effort that you put towards this small difference to instead be creating constructive edits across Conservapedia. I really wish you would help us by looking at the bigger picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:18, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

The issue is about what "fully patched" (from the second paragraph of [http://www.ccgr.org/computer/left-behind-tribulation-forces.html this reference]) means in regards to the game. I have taken the plain, straight-forward English position (which the vast majority of average readers will understand) that "fully patched" means "fully patched" while Urushie apparently thinks (and I've never seen him say otherwise) that "fully patched" means "not fully patched." He has tried to argue that since hackers created a security breach in a fully patched version of Windows that means that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched" in all instances, and ignoring the painfully obvious and insurmountable difference between people deliberately hacking Windows to create problems and a game which people aren't trying to hack into. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:40, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I am suggesting a rewrite of the reviews section. I also notice that information in the reviews section about the game is not included elsewhere, such as using actual images and logos from New York City. Factual information about the game should never first appear under the reviews area.

The reviews are pertinent, but we have references for them if people want to check them up. It is understood that initial versions will have bugs that need to be addressed, but that should not be the focus. The focus should be on how the game plays after the fixes. On a different note, fully patched does not mean that all greivances ever brought up about the game have been solved. The developers of the game would not even have any way of knowing all of those greivances. It does mean that playability issues as presented in the patch documentation have been resolved. It should also be pointed out that some of the greivances raised against the game are ideological or differences of opinion in what makes a fun game. People who want a shoot 'em up will not be happy with Left Behind: Eternal Forces, nor should an effort be made to make them happy. Our article should report about the game and what it is as the focus. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, actually, Jinx, what you would have realised, had you bothered to read what I have written, is that 'fully patched' means 'all available patches have been applied', as I have stated several times. According to you, however, it means 'any and all issues of any kind have been addressed by patches'. As I have also stated above, saying that 'fully patched means fully patched' means nothing if you are not giving the proper meaning of 'fully patched' in the first place. At no time have I said 'fully patched does not mean fully patched', I have said, repeatedly, that what you have claimed 'fully patched' actually means is simply wrong. The idea that the links I provided are people 'creating problems' with Windows (and, in fact, the different links I supplied referred to several bits of software, not just Windows, so try reading them) shows you are ignorant of fairly basic facts on the subject. Hackers and crackers don't 'create' problems with Windows, etc, they FIND them. The malware they create are only designed to take advantage of existing problems, of one kind or another. Thus, the links I provided disprove your definition of 'fully patched' (that any and all issues are fixed). If that weren't enough try simply doing a Google search for the phrase, and count how many times the phrase is clearly used to mean what you claim it means. I have already asked you to do this twice, and you apparantly simply refuse. To date, you have utterly failed to actually provide any evidence, bar your own assertion, that you are correct, but, instead, have repeatedly tried to arbritrarily insert the idea that all issues, of any kind, raised by the reviews have been addressed by patches, based, apparantly, entirely on your own opinion that the game is fantastic, and therefore cannot be legitimately criticised in any way, backed up by one sentence that uses the phrase 'fully patched' in one article and your own faulty understanding of what 'fully patched' actually means. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to rewrite the section so that no reference is made to this issue at all (or, indeed, simply remove the sentence in question) I have no objection. What I do have an objection to is Jinx perpetrating a factual inaccuracy based purely on his own opinion, and in face of the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:48, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with Learn Together here. It's silly to argue the definition of "fully patched" and really, I'm not sure how it's entirely relevant to the issue at hand. Why don't we focus on making the entire article better and, as Learn Together said, address what the issues with the current game are, not what issues may or may not have been fixed. We are spending way to much time talking about game patches, when the article is not about game patches. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:PS: Jinx, you say the "plain, straight-forward" definition is that fully patched means nothing left is wrong, and I would disagree. Fully patched means, especially in this context, that all of the current patches have been applied, not that there are no more holes which need a patch. The hacking analogy might be erroneous (and I'm not saying that it is), but this doesn't mean necesessarily that his conclusion is erronious. I'm afraid I still don't see how this fits in to the entire article, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::In short, it's a very minor point in the article, which is why I have zero objections to it being removed entirely. I have been trying to bring some balance to the 'Reviews' section (as, in it's original form, it seemed to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias'), and Jinx has been very grudgingly giving ground when he's been more or less forced to. For some reason, though, he has dug his heels firmly in, and refuses to budge on this, and wants to claim that there are no issues or complaints raised by the reviews that haven't been patched, despite simply looking at the reviews referenced within the article and comparing that with the list of fixes in the patchnotes (also referenced within the article) indicates this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:52, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't think either helpjazz or myself wants to imply that we taking sides in your discussion in such a way as to denigrate either of you. You both have strong passions and feel strongly about certain aspects of how the article should be presented. Both of you can be valued contributors to the site and we hope both of you will be in the future. Any solution we reach here is not meant to be a 'right' or 'wrong' solution, but rather one that incorporates all of the information that both of you have given in such a form that the article is fair and upholds Conservapedia standards. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:29, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have an article from January 2008 that states the game is fully patched to back up my position. You have reviews from almost a year and a half ago to back up your's. Who do you think has a more reliable source for the current version of the game? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:15, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::::And you're still completely and utterly missing the point, even though I have said it, multiple times, in as clear language as I can. What you obviously think 'fully patched' means is not what 'fully patched' actually means. Got it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::No, I'm not missing the point. You think "fully patched" means "not fully patched" because some hacker yahoos created a new breach in ONE FLIPPING PROGRAM OUT OF THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, that statement is yet further evidence that you ''are'' missing the point, and, basically, haven't even read what I have written on here (or, indeed, even read all the links you're referring to). What more can I say? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Tell me, O keeper of what basic English phrases actually mean, if hackers had not "found" (created) this new exploit of Windows, what leg would you have thought you had to stand on? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, you're providing yet more evidence you're missing the point, plus providing more evidence you didn't actually read all the links I provided. Try going back and reading over everything I have said here, actually reading the links I provided, doing the Google search I asked you to do three times, which you still apparantly haven't actually done, and making sure you actually understand all the information I have directed you towards (feel free to ask for clarification on anything you don't), and maybe we can have a discussion on the matter at hand, instead of rehashing things already covered. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add, or are you just going to repeat "you're missing the point" ad nauseum and lying that I didn't read all the links? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::Well, your last couple of statements are a pretty clear indication you are, indeed, missing the point, and, if you had read all the links, you would realise that certain details in your last couple of statements are simply wrong, so you're making those statements either through ignorance or an attempt at deliberate deception. I chose 'ignorance', as it leaves you in a better light. Was I wrong to do that? If you require a hint as to what, exactly, is wrong with your statements, well, that's something that is also already covered - try the fifth sentence in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&diff=407820&oldid=407769 this] edit of mine. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:02, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::It's obvious that the two of you will never agree on this issue and it's also obvious that this is about to degenerate (again) into [[ad hominem|personal attacks]]. Is the distinction between "fully patched" and "has a full allotment of patches" ''really'' so important to the article? Can we just write a version of the article that you both agree on (perhaps by deleting the statement entirely), since you will never be able to convince the other of their position? Please? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Yes. PLEASE, yes. Anything - ANYTHING - to cease the stupid, inane, inaccurate, ridiculously nonsensical arguments I'm seeing here. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Well, I've already stated that I have no objections to the relevant sentence being deleted entirely, and now Jinx has finally said the same thing, so feel free. Strangely enough, Jinx's statement above is a pretty accurate echo of my thoughts. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:31, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::So... the latter, then. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

As a professional [[computer programmer]], I can assure you that [[software release]]s tend to be buggy, especially when there is publication pressure. Computer game developers are usually under tremendous pressure to grab [[market share]], but a "pressured programmer" is a sloppy programmer. It takes time to get things right.

I'm sure there are many [[software bug]]s in "Left Behind". How fast these are being fixed, I have no idea. Whether free patches or [[service pack]]s are being given to customers, I also have no idea.

I suggest we divide the commentary on the game into two sections:
#the story line of the game
#technical issues

Various groups will have ideological reactions to the game's themes of [[tribulation]] and [[rapture]]. It's astonishing that a Jewish group would apparently defend a [[fundamentalist Christian]] idea, but if ADL says it's not [[anti-Semitic]] I got to go along with that: they set the bar very high.

I don't think we need to list all the technical issues, but I wouldn't mind a [[spinoff article]] called [[Technical issues in Left Behind]] or [[Technical issues in Eternal Forces]].

No need to fight over whether the patches are sufficient; just quote the various sources, perhaps in chronological order. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I really don't see a need for any spinoff articles beyond one for the sequel. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, what I was actually somewhat surprised at was that, with the exception of Talk To Action, plus one or two other who seemingly believed Talk To Action's lies, the reaction to the general concept of the game was very positive. Even the negative reviews referred to in the article basically summarise the game as 'good concept, but badly executed'. This even includes the supposedly 'religiously biased' Game Revolution review that said it 'wastes a good premise'. I agree that we don't need to list all the technical issues (and I would even go further and say there is no pressing need to refer to reviews at all), but, if we are going to refer to reviews, we need to make sure that the general thrust of those reviews is accurately reflected, whether we agree with them or not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Alright, I ''think'' I have fixed it so that everybody is happy. If I messed up please correct me. I'm glad we could finally come to an agreement. Now kiss and make up :p [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:So... how is the wording of your fix different from what I wanted? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:27, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::I didn't intend to pick one side or the other. I thought the argument was over "fully patched means that all the holes were fixed" or "fully patched means that all of the patches have been applied, but not all holes have been fixed", and now the argument simply says "dozens of issues" were fixed, rather than "all issues" (as you wanted) or "not all issues" (as Urushnor wanted). My edit isn't final, so if I didn't do it correctly please fix it (with Urushnor's agreement, of course). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm expecting no agreement from him since he's under the impression that if it doesn't explicitly say "some," then it implies "all." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:48, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::If that's what he actually thinks (and I'll let Urushnor speak for himself) then take away the whole thing. I'm just trying to help here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:23, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Jinx, the whole purpose of doing [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&diff=403143&oldid=402121 this edit] was that, according to you, you had found proof that no issues were remaining, in the link you added. If you read what you have written on DanH's talk page, the various comments you put in edit summaries, plus what you have written here on this Talk page, that is completely clear. In fact, your link is no such thing, which is why I moved it to a more appropriate place in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&diff=next&oldid=403167 this edit], and put in the word 'some' as there is no way to determine how many of the issues fixed in patches are down to complaints, and how many are down to something else (internal testing, getting around to fixes that didn't make it in pre-release development, etc). You had been continually reverting my edits, and continued to do so, based purely on the idea that your link DID provide such information, as can be seen from your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&action=history edit comments], so don't try now saying otherwise. HelpJazz's version makes no reference to how many issues were or were not fixed due to complaints, or whether or not there are any remaining, and has left the source in the appropriate place. In essence, he has done my edit in a slightly different way, so, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-21T00:23:50Z

Urushnor: /* No evidence for this article period */

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on [[user:PhoenixWright|my user page]], in this [[tabula rasa]] environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. [[User:kitefox|kitefox]]

As would I. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ann Coulter]] :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Misleading terminology==

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Where is the evidence? ==

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

:'''Conservatives''' often make approval of [[conservative]] values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[conservative]] values.

:A '''conservative friendship''' can occur wherever [[conservatives]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

:In contrast, [[liberals]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship.

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:We know [[Liberals]] all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your [[Liberal tricks]]. Reflect and improve! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a ''reflection'' of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ostracize a republican ==

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: No one is claiming anything about ''all liberals''. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Untrue, and I ought to block you for saying it - but I'm enjoying the delicious irony here too much. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that ''Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about ''all conservatives''. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:" But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"

:Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove ''nothing whatever'' about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Since it's been a while now... ==

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the ''imprimatur'' of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: ''Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.'' and it would be just as "true". You know, [[Michael Moore]]'s book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in [[Ann Coulter]]'s "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to '''never''' concede '''anything''' to a liberal. Just some food for thought. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Don't fall into the tit for tat trap. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Huh? I was just saying that it should be an essay like Phoenix did, what do you mean tit-for-tat trap? [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", '''yes'''. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, '''no'''. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their '''friends''', (after all, that is the title of the article).
[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== No evidence for this article period ==

Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case '''whatsoever''': ''They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.'' Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.

Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.

Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at [[Bob Jones University]] you don't think they'd get flack?!

For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in '''university's''', it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from '''opinion'''journal.com), doesn't provide any proof for '''this''' article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.
::Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is '''opinion'''. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals '''''often''''' make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")
::I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the point is that liberals all too frequently '''do try''' to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see [[conditional love]]; compare [[unconditional love]].

:::Unless your are trying to censor [[Liberals and friendship|this opinion]], you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).

:::To participate as an equal in this project, you must regularly provide trustworthy information. This includes information that casts doubt on "conservative opinion". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Aug19.html original source], is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them '''opinions'''. I refer you to [[Deliberate ignorance]]: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces

2008-03-20T23:31:33Z

Urushnor: /* Edit war */

Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces

2008-03-20T04:02:31Z

Urushnor: /* Edit war */

Uhhh... criticism of issues within the game isn't allowed? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:32, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Sure it is, but snarky, unsourced (love the hypocrisy of that) edits like yours aren't. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::I think I may have misinterpreted that statement, but... Sir, are you accusing me of making nothing but snarky, hypocritcal edits? For that matter, how is it hypocritical? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::That edit was snarky and hypocritical, yes. It is snarky because it was made simply to be obnoxious and hypocritical because you questioned unsourced material in the [[Video game]] article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::Ah. Gotcha. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then. I shall read more carefully next time. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:There is a large and well referenced section on controversy and criticism. All you added was unreferenced parody. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::All of which focuses on claims made before the game came out. It wasn't parody. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Wait, what am I talking about? The last sentence was. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::So you freely admit you learned nothing from your recent block and are continuing to edit disruptively? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I've edited the 'controversy and criticism' section to be a bit more accurate. With the exception of Max Blumenthal's blog, the cited sources do not, in fact, criticise the game - they report others criticising the game, and also give quotes from Left Behind Games refuting that criticism. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:46, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Jinxmchue, I do not know why you keep reverting my edit. You seem to be trying to say that all of the complaints have been addressed by patches. This is simply not the case. You provided a [http://www.lbgstore.com/lebetrfoupcd.html URL] that would allow me to purchase an add-on CD that would update the game with the Tribulation Forces expansion. Well, that's a paid-for expansion, not a free patch. If you were directing me to the patchnotes for the various patches to the base game underneath that, if you compare that with the complaints voiced in the various sources in the article, this simply proves that not all the complaints have been addressed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:28, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:"Many" and "most" also mean "more than one and less than all of them." Why not use those words (which actually would be more accurate since there are very few issues left (if any) regarding the original criticisms)? My link in my summary was to provide an idea of the number of issues Left Behind Games has addressed with their upgrades. The list is dozens of items long. How many more issues do you think are left to address? And despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well, if you were saying that 'many' or 'most' is more accurate, why did YOU not change it to that, instead of reverting it to remove any word that suggested not all the complaints had been addressed? I would actually say that 'some' is more accurate anyway, as whilst quite a few of the complaints have been addressed, it seems to be some of the ones that aren't are actually the most severe ('lousy controls' and the poor graphics for two examples). As to your statement, 'despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed', sorry, but yes, it does. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:37, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Complaints vs. patches ==

I intend to write up something (for Talk at least) comparing the complaints about the game to the various issues that were covered by the patches. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Already done that.

:This is the list of complaints in the various reviews in the article:
#Lousy Controls
#Too much micromanagement
#Bad AI
#Poor graphics and art design
#Lack of single-player skirmish mode
#Slow multiplayer
#Watered-down storyline
#All the units look the same
#Repetitive gameplay
#Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
#Borderline racism (quite a number of the 'bad guys' have Arab, Indian, African, etc, names and appearances, but mysteriously lose this when they're 'recruited' and become Caucasian)
#Bad level design (sections of the city blocked off for no good reason, for example)
#Frequent crashes and lock-ups
#Seems to give a mixed message (the subject matter and tone of the game is very righteous, but then lets you play as the Antichrist in multiplayer)
#Poor quality of voice-acting
#Too much advertising in the game

Complaints addressed in the patches:

#Too much micromanagement (eased but not fully addressed)
#Bad AI (unclear whether all isuues were addressed or not)
#Poor graphics and art design (partially addressed by improving the shadows on 'high end systems')
#Slow multiplayer
#Frequent crashes and lock-ups (not clear whether completely fixed)

Complaints remaining unaddressed:

#Lousy controls
#Lack of single-player skirmish mode
#Watered-down storyline
#All the units look the same
#Repetitive gameplay
#Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
#Borderline racism
#Bad level design
#Seems to give a mixed message
#Poor quality of voice-acting
#Too much advertising in the game

Issues fixed in the patches NOT mentioned in the reviews:

#Multiplayer Chat tab enabled. You can now chat with players online before you join a game.
#Female Recruiters added.
#Mission 2 - Teddy can now visit the finish zone at any time without issues.
#Mission 4 - Teddy can now speak to Mary.
#Mission 6 - The first 7 friends can be trained and the mission will now end upon bringing the final 10 friends to the Chapel (provided they are still all on your side).
#Mission 8 - An extra building is available to be acquired.
#Demons can withstand heavy physical attacks. Attack them with good spiritual warfare.
#Various playbalancing and fixes including sound transitions and multiplayer server list.
#Multiplayer Buddy List enabled.
#Enhanced join server screen with game parameters listed.
#GameSpy profile integration. Create a profile or use an existing one to create your buddy list.
#3 New Multiplayer Maps including upgraded units at the start of the game for quick skirmish action.
#Vocal Warnings for events.
#Improved Sound System compatibility and sound playback.
#Improved LGBHelp system for better support to our users, including an auto-config based on system specs.
#Various mission playbalancing and fixes.
#When logged in with a GameSpy Profile ID, Gold and Silver users will have auto buddy list requests and their buddy’s multiplayer games will be listed first.
#Buddy List graphical enhancements.
#Winning point limit (if applicable) is shown during a multiplayer game.
#Improved navigation for multiplayer game creation.
#Demons are now displayed in a dark grey color.
#4X4 Skirmish map timer fixed.
#Improved support for multiplayer hosting – UPnP support added.
#Chat filter implemented.
#Added more stats to the end of a multiplayer game, including an overall summary of all players.
#Allied units display as such when clicked in multiplayer.
#Multiplayer skirmish maps are easier to find on the map selection screen.
#Voice of God and Angels implemented for evil actions.
#Mission 4 - The Chapel is pinged when Mary is active.
#Mission 19 - Defending time shortened.
#Mission 23 - Phantom enemy vehicles removed.
#Mission 32 – Buck can get his disguise upon mission start.
#Mission 36 - Defending time shortened.
#Mission 37 – GCP Camp now pinged.
#Many other text revisions and mission improvements
#AUTO recruit improved even further – Evil units that turn neutral are now auto recruited as well.
#Building Icons added to the game screen for easier ID of user’s buildings.
#Right mouse to follow a friendly unit implemented (Alt-Right Click still works too).
#Multiple Helicopter spawning issue fixed.
#Replay Load VO overlap fixed.
#The Scroll description has been revised.
#Spiritual influence now does two times damage to demons.
#Alt-Tab Camera issue fixed.
#No longer able to attempt to follow enemy or neutral vehicles.
#Event noise modified.
#Menu enhancements providing more intuitive feedback to the user.
#A military unit must be in a military vehicle in order for the vehicle to fire.
#Sat-Com special ability has been enhanced, now a triangle will display in the minimap and H will display the type of building in the main screen.
#Firearm range increased slightly.
#Maximum number of items in inventory for each type is now 2.
#Minor gameplay tweaks and unit balances.
#Tutorial 2 - Allows for different combination of units to make the camp available.
#Tutorial 3 - Fixed intermittant crash after Musician was trained.
#Fixed crash on start occurring with the mutltiplayer enhancement pack version for some older machines.
#Tutorial 2 – Auto recruit is taught instead of manual recruit taking advantage of the auto recruit improvements for ease of use.
#Additional auto-configuration based on system specs for Intel based graphic adapters (Note: these adapters are not officially supported, but may work).
#Forfeit button added for multiplayer games.
#Gamespy buddy authorization pop-up reminder added.
#Multiplayer hints describing functionality of each menu button including expanded buddy list explanations.
#Minimap building filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of building when activated. Make finding types of building much easier.
#Owned buildings now display in the players color at all times for easy recognition.
#Evil Hero revision to Enigma Leader.
#Chat window multiple selection from menu fixed.
#Gamespy creation or login will display a not valid warning if it has a space in the name.
#Password protected multiplayer games are now displayed with a lock on the join screen.
#Version number of server’s game is now displayed on the join screen when a game is selected.
#Multiplayer skirmish maps have been rebalanced to be even at the start of the game. Evil used to have 1 extra unit.
#New clue music.
#Incorrect VO not playing anymore on level 4 load screen.
#Mouse handedness is taken from system mouse settings and is no longer clickable from options menu. If you want to change it, use the Windows Control Panel/Mouse.
#Gamespy profile file no longer displays password for added protection.
#Screen flickering fixed when leaving a multiplayer game someone quit out of early.
#Lengthy email address truncating fixed on Gamespy create window.
#Point limit and time limit now display on multiplayer replays.
#Correct message now appears to the server when the client quits the game early in a 2 player game.
#VO pauses when the pause key is pressed.
#Gamespy Voice Chat muting options. Players can be muted in the game lobby and with the Chat options screen from the in-game menu. Note: Enemy players will be muted upon starting the game. Note: Port 31322 UDP must be opened to enjoy voice chatting.
#Microphone Volume control and testing capability within the Audio tab of the Options window.
#Major UI overhaul - new graphical enhancements and improvements.
#Collision improvements between neutral units and vehicles.
#Multiplayer hint toggle is now in the Game tab of the Options window.
#Minimap unit filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of unit when activated. It makes finding a type of unit much easier.
#Unit and Building selection icons. One click selection of a unit type and one click goto building type functionality added to the interface.
#Units inside building displayed. When you mouse over a building with units inside, the unit icons will display on screen.
#Recruiting fix for fast walking neutrals - the unit will now stop to be recruited.
#To/From voice chat options included. Now you have the ability to choose who hears your voice chat.
#Text chat muting. You can now mute text chat from specific players in game.
#Fixed loud noise upon start on some machines.
#Various mission scripting enhancements for additional audio sequences.
#Revised Tutorial 1 by adding a neutral unit and an evil unit as visual aids.
#Revised Left Handed VO and text in the tutorials to be more clear.
#Revised missions 22, 31, and 35 to decrease difficulty.
#National and International Banks now have sound when clicked.
#A Friend was added to the start of Mission 27.
#Revised missions 17, 20, 23, and 30 to decrease difficulty.
[[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not quite. Thanks for trying to beat me to the punch, though, in order to push your own agenda against this game. Oh, and I particularly liked the inclusion of "Misogynistic 50s-style sexism" and "Borderline racism." The only patch that's going to address those complaints is the one that works on the software between the complainers' ears. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Well, actually, I can think of a couple of ways the developers can patch in something to address those complaints, but that's pretty much irrelevant - you were originally saying ALL the complaints had been addressed by the patches, which simply isn't the case. As for your comment about 'pushing my own agenda', does this mean you are claiming the above points listed as not being in the reviews aren't in the patchnotes? Or are you saying that those points are, in fact, mentioned in the reviews? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I will give DanH a chance to explain how he thinks the above information 'vindicates' Jinxmchue, so I will leave the article in it's current form. If I receive no answer, however, I will alter it to be accurate to what the above seems to indicate - that the patches fix dozens of issues, including some of the issues raised by the complaints in the reviews. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Threats now? I would really reconsider that if I were you. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, statement of intent. DanH has now seemingly understood what I was saying, so I've redone the edit. The relevant passage, in it's old form, seemed to say that all the fixes in the patches, without exception, were as a direct result of the complaints in the reviews, which, in light of the above, seems blindingly obvious is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, yet again, you edit the article, inserting incorrect comments. If you remove the 'non-technical' complaints from the list above, that is still 5 addressed (and not even all of those completely) out of 12. That is not 'most'. As for the perceived racism and sexism, the developers could patch it so that both sides have units with African, Arabic, Indian, etc names and appearances (or, at the very least, the units which do have these features don't mysteriously become Caucasian when they're 'recruited'), and that the units are known by the same title whether they be male or female, instead of it being a 'Recruiter', for example, if they're male, and a 'Female Recruiter' if they're female, as if this is somehow something different. As such, your statement that this cannot be patched is blatently your own opinion, or simply wrong, or both. Take your pick. As for complaints about the game's 'theology', as far as I can see, there were none. The closest that came to this was one review said that the game gave mixed messages by being very righteous in tone and content, but then lets you play as the Antichrist. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is your ''personal opinion'' that is being used as a source to defend the use of "some." But the point is moot now as I have just added a reference which states that the game is fully patched (the version included with "Tribulation Forces" is the same version as the latest update for the original game). End of discussion. Point. Set. Match. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::Erm, relevant section from your source:
::::'''What is included in this expansion?'''

::::Besides getting a fully patched version of Eternal Forces, you get five new story line missions for the second chapter, Tribulation Forces. There is a new single and multiplayer game mode call skirmish. In this mode you choose a map, what team you want to play, and how many allies or enemies you want. To win you have to earn and maintain a certain number of points. To gain points you have to win over neutrals to your side and build up your forces.

::::There is a new group you can play, The American Militia. This is an army that is neutral spiritual wise and they are allies with the Tribulation Forces and combat the Anti-Christ’s army. With the American Militia there is no peaceful way to neutralize the enemy. Fortunately, when you do kill them, there is no blood.''

::This does not say there are no issues remaining - it means the version of Eternal Forces you get has all the patches so far released already applied. Try reading and understanding your own sources. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:23, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I should add - I think your accusation of 'my opinion being used to defend the use of ''some''' is particularly ironic, given that it appears very clear that you have been trying to impose your opinion that this game is absolutely excellent and cannot have any valid complaints levelled against it on this article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh, please. "Fully patched" means "fully patched." You are applying unprovable standards to that phrase which cannot be verified. Continue to try to push your disproven agenda and you actions will be reported. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:36, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Do a Google search for 'fully patched'. You'll get hits like [http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=254 this], [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-exploit-blows-by-fully-patched.html this], [http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/09/new_attack_compromises_fullypatched_ie_browsers.html this], [http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/0046258 this], [http://securitywatch.eweek.com/microsoft_windows/driveby_exploit_plants_trojans_on_fully_patched_iewindows_systems.html this], [http://www.geek.com/fully-patched-firefox-browser-has-extensions-vulnerability/ this], [http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6230 this], [http://www.2-spyware.com/news/post243.html this], [http://digg.com/tech_news/New_exploit_blows_by_fully_patched_Windows_XP_systems this] and [http://virtualization.sys-con.com/read/166894.htm this]. That's just a few samples from the first 2 or 3 pages that most effectively prove my point - which is that you are utterly and completely wrong. 'Fully patched' does not mean 'no issues left', it means 'all patches so far applied'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I've done a compromise (again) - I've kept your edit, but altered it to be accurate, in light of the above, and moved your source to a more appropriate place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:55, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Reviews ==

I believe this section could be better. Aspects that are said to be poor by some reviews are said to be superior by other reviews below. We want to make it easy for our readers to get a feel as to how the game plays. It's best to just record information that is agreed upon. Also, the line that indicates the product suffered from "bugs... crashes" is misleading. Virutally all new products suffer from bugs and crashes. The question is what makes the game different, and, of course, what is it like after its patches?

:Going by a couple of the reviews, this game suffered more than most from bugs and crashes. Gamespot, for example, reported that, 'Crashes are such a frequent occurrence that it seems like you've got maybe 50/50 odds between a level or a save loading properly and the game freezing up with a sound loop. Sometimes it also hard locks Windows in these circumstances, forcing a system reboot. This was even a problem for us during automatic restarts after changing the in-game resolution. The only way we could change any of the default visual settings was to manually shut down and restart the game, because letting it restart on its own always locked up our system and necessitated a reboot.' As to what extent the patches fixed thing like this, that isn't clear. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I would also suggest using the opportunity of the article protection to reach wording that both of you can agree with instead of reverting. Your differences appeared to be minor, and there was no reason to force Dan to intervene and lock the article over a small difference that you should have been able to solve in other ways. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may. As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual (it's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues), and, for another example, the implication that the Game Revolution review was poor due to religious reasons, despite the fact the reviewer specifically makes the point he believes in the freedom of people to believe what they like (and his corresponding freedom to believe they're all nuts), and actually cites various gameplay, graphical and technical reasons for giving the game a poor rating. That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however. It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse, so, in my opinion, it should be left as is, or that sentence removed entirely, and the first sentence of that paragraph reworded to 'Some of the complaints in the initial reviews of the game...'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::<sigh> Well, your very first sentence there shows us exactly who is the one pushing their agenda. The only "agreement" or "compromise" that you want is the one that favors your biased view. I've actually provided a reference that says the game is fully patched. Your "only some of the issues were addressed" is based on... what? Your say-so and nothing more. Hrm... Reference vs. your say-so. Which is more trustworthy? And the article is hardly "slightly biased in the game's favour." It has presented both sides from the beginning. Oh, and I like your oh-so humble "It's less biased now that ''I'' started editing it! Dun-da-da-DA!" bit. Give me a flipping break! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, by the way, this is CONSERVApedia, not WIKIpedia, so get used to the articles having bias against your point of view. Either that or leave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinx, do I need to tell you to play nice again? Anyone is allowed to edit conservapedia, and you are in no position to tell people to leave. Please behave! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::I wasn't telling him to leave. I was saying that he'd better get used to Conservapedia's conservative slant (duh!) being against his point of view and if he doesn't, then he should (not must) leave. I was suggesting a course of action, not making a demand. In fact, I didn't even need to suggest that option because he probably would find himself unwittingly made to leave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinx, for your claim of 'fully patched', see the section immediately above this. 'Fully patched' does not mean what you obviously think it means. As for what I base the idea that not all issues have been addressed, again, that is clearly laid out in the section above. So far, all you have done is assert that you are right and I am wrong, nothing more. Conversely, I am putting what the '''cited references in the article''' say, not my own personal opinion, and I didn't even put those references in, so how you can say that it is ME pushing an agenda, is, quite frankly, a total mystery. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... "Fully patched" doesn't actually mean "fully patched," but "not fully/only partially patched?" Because YOU (and only you) say so? And does "black" mean "white" and "up" mean "down," too? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jinx, did you, as I said, actually do a Google search for the term? Here, I've [http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%40fully+patched%27&meta=&btnG=Google+Search done one for you]. Go through those, and count how many times you can see that 'fully patched' is definitely used to mean 'there are no issues left to be addressed'. What I have stated as the meaning of 'fully patched' is the NORMAL USAGE OF THE TERM. It would be more correct to say that YOU are claiming that it means 'no issues left to be addressed' because that is what YOU claim it means, and no-one else. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yeah, I read your arguments about what "fully patched" means and dismissed them as utterly ridiculous. How exactly does the fact that some hackers found a new way past Windows security reflect at all on either the term "fully patched" or "Eternal Forces?" The issues are so completely dissimilar that I find it difficult to believe that even you cannot see it. Windows was fully patched until the hackers worked to find another exploit. So Microsoft will issue a patch for that and the program will once again be fully patched. That they did not have a patch for this new issue before it happened (that'd be one heck of a trick if they did!) does not mean it wasn't fully patched. "Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit/bug/whatever that was known at the time the article was written, but still using the term 'fully patched' to describe Windows XP/Internet Explorer/whatever other software it was talking about. Indeed, if you look at some of the hits that I didn't point out, what do you get? Things like ones talking about World of Warcraft 'fully patched' to version 2.3. If you read the [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/test-realm-patchnotes.html patch notes] for the upcoming 2.4 patch, you see several fixes, and I can tell you some of those are issues that have been known about for a while. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Again, that this new exploit came out does not change the fact that the program was fully patched. And this issue is completely unlike "Eternal Forces." There are no hackers working to break into the "Eternal Forces" program. If there was no exploit created for Windows, what then? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on with this argument. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::No, according to YOUR definition of 'fully patched', at the time the articles were written, the various bits of software they are talking about were NOT 'fully patched', yet the articles still call them 'fully patched'. Face it, Jinx, you are simply wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::"My" definition of "fully patched" is taken from basic, straight-forward usage of the English language. Whatever weird definition you are using (in which "fully patched" means "not fully patched") is not going to be understood by the general public. And it was ONE article written RECENTLY (January) which calls the version of "Eternal Forces" which is included with its sequel (and is the same version as the original game with all patches) "fully patched." You're the one who is wrong and I'm tired of your idiotic, senseless arguments. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::You have provided ONE article where the term 'fully patched' is used in reference to Eternal Forces, as supposed proof that Eternal Forces has no issues remaining with it. To back that up, all you have done is assert that 'fully patched' means that 'there are no issues remaining', and repeated that 'fully patched means fully patched', like it's some kind of mantra. In comparison, I have provided multiple articles where the term 'fully patched' is being used to refer to software that clearly does have issues remaining, and, indeed, asked you to simply do a Google search for the term (and even done one for you, and linked it) and count how many times the term is clearly used in the way you claim. You appear to simply refuse to do that. As for your definition of 'fully patched' being taken from 'basic, straight-forward usage of the English language', well, let's just put it this way - I fail to see how the definition of 'the full range of available patches have been applied' does not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:51, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I should also point out that you keep repeating 'fully patched means fully patched', like that actually means something. Sorry, it doesn't. If you have fundamentally misunderstood what 'fully patched' actually means, and are therefore trying to apply it incorrectly, then all you're doing is misusing a phrase twice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::It does mean something despite your desire for it to mean something else or nothing. You are trying to argue that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched," which is nonsensical. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: How clear do I have to say it? If you are getting the meaning of 'fully patched' wrong, then simply repeating the phrase twice is, indeed, meaningless. If I claimed that 'religion' meant 'a particular way of passing wind', then tried to back that up by simply repeating 'religion means religion' several times, you'd view my argument as non-existant and stupid (and quite rightly so). That, basically, is what you're doing. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I should also add that your claim of the article 'presenting both sides from the start' is questionable to say the least. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&direction=next&oldid=393348#Reviews Here] is the relevant section before I started editing it. Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else (even though if you actually read the one [http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind review] actually quoted there, well, that's the Game Revolution review, which I've talked about above, and one thing I left out is that one of the reasons it actually marks the game down for is that it 'wastes a good premise'. That hardly sounds like 'religious bias' to me). What's the next diff? Me clarifying there was more than religious reasons for criticising the game. The one after that? You reverting my edit, claiming that my point has nothing to do with the subject, even though that section is called 'Reviews', and I'm quoting directly from the same review. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Quoting you:
:::::''"Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else[.]"''
::::Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! I used the word "some" just like you! Quoting me:
:::::''"Some of the reviews were more about the reviewers' personal bias against religion in general or evangelical Christianity specifically."''
::::See? Some, not all. SOME, not ALL. Man, you have a serious problem with what does or does not imply something or other, don't you? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, some of the reviews. Not all the reviews gave a low rating. Now, if you had said, 'some of the negative reviews', you might have a point. But you didn't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Honestly, your arguments getting more and more stupid. Does it really need to be "some of the negative reviews" instead of "some of the reviews?" The latter is not incorrect or inaccurate despite what you erroneously think.

::::::: ....except in the way it implies that the 'some' of the reviews it's talking about is the negative ones. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Besides, how do we know that those who gave positive reviews don't have personal biases against religion which they simply did not put into the reviews? We don't. Adding the word "negative" to the sentence is unnecessary and ridiculous, and in fact would introduce bias against the negative reviews. I thought were supposedly against bias. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::So, what you're saying is that you're free to make any ridiculous assertation you like, and it is up to me to provide evidence you're wrong, rather than you actually providing evidence you're correct? Sorry, doesn't work that way - if you make a claim, you have to prove it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, have any of you played the game? Reviews are interesting, but I wouldn't mind some firsthand knowledge either. How does it really play? For instance the first Age of Empires could also go slow during huge battle scenes, but it was still an excellent game. And, I would be interested in how it plays after patches more than problems it had at first. While initial shortcomings can be mentioned as a footnote, what our readership will really want to know is what could they expect if they played it themselves in the present? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:Go to my user page, find my "shameless plug for my blog," and scroll about a quarter of the way down my blog to my latest post about the game (including links to my previous posts). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting reading. Thing is, it seems to confirm that you are pushing your opinion of the game, instead of relying on objective facts. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It does no such thing and you know it. The only thing I'm pushing is the truth, which you are rejecting based upon your own pushing of your opinion. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, just ask yourself this - who is it that's disagreeing with the cited sources in the article, even the ones he put in himself? Who is it that's actually providing evidence to back up what he's saying, rather than merely asserting that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong? I'll give you a hint - the answer to the first question is NOT 'Urushnor', and the answer to the second is NOT 'Jinxmchue'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I wish to reiterate again that whatever form the article ultimately takes, that there are no winners or losers here. You have both provided valuable information that has improved the article beyond what it could have been had you not contributed and both of you are held in high regard for your work and insights. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

Can someone explain, in simple, non-ad hominem terms, what this edit war is about? It looks to me like you are moving one citation back and forth between paragraphs. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:11, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree gentlemen that this seems silly. You both could be using the effort that you put towards this small difference to instead be creating constructive edits across Conservapedia. I really wish you would help us by looking at the bigger picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:18, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

The issue is about what "fully patched" (from the second paragraph of [http://www.ccgr.org/computer/left-behind-tribulation-forces.html this reference]) means in regards to the game. I have taken the plain, straight-forward English position (which the vast majority of average readers will understand) that "fully patched" means "fully patched" while Urushie apparently thinks (and I've never seen him say otherwise) that "fully patched" means "not fully patched." He has tried to argue that since hackers created a security breach in a fully patched version of Windows that means that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched" in all instances, and ignoring the painfully obvious and insurmountable difference between people deliberately hacking Windows to create problems and a game which people aren't trying to hack into. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:40, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I am suggesting a rewrite of the reviews section. I also notice that information in the reviews section about the game is not included elsewhere, such as using actual images and logos from New York City. Factual information about the game should never first appear under the reviews area.

The reviews are pertinent, but we have references for them if people want to check them up. It is understood that initial versions will have bugs that need to be addressed, but that should not be the focus. The focus should be on how the game plays after the fixes. On a different note, fully patched does not mean that all greivances ever brought up about the game have been solved. The developers of the game would not even have any way of knowing all of those greivances. It does mean that playability issues as presented in the patch documentation have been resolved. It should also be pointed out that some of the greivances raised against the game are ideological or differences of opinion in what makes a fun game. People who want a shoot 'em up will not be happy with Left Behind: Eternal Forces, nor should an effort be made to make them happy. Our article should report about the game and what it is as the focus. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, actually, Jinx, what you would have realised, had you bothered to read what I have written, is that 'fully patched' means 'all available patches have been applied', as I have stated several times. According to you, however, it means 'any and all issues of any kind have been addressed by patches'. As I have also stated above, saying that 'fully patched means fully patched' means nothing if you are not giving the proper meaning of 'fully patched' in the first place. At no time have I said 'fully patched does not mean fully patched', I have said, repeatedly, that what you have claimed 'fully patched' actually means is simply wrong. The idea that the links I provided are people 'creating problems' with Windows (and, in fact, the different links I supplied referred to several bits of software, not just Windows, so try reading them) shows you are ignorant of fairly basic facts on the subject. Hackers and crackers don't 'create' problems with Windows, etc, they FIND them. The malware they create are only designed to take advantage of existing problems, of one kind or another. Thus, the links I provided disprove your definition of 'fully patched' (that any and all issues are fixed). If that weren't enough try simply doing a Google search for the phrase, and count how many times the phrase is clearly used to mean what you claim it means. I have already asked you to do this twice, and you apparantly simply refuse. To date, you have utterly failed to actually provide any evidence, bar your own assertion, that you are correct, but, instead, have repeatedly tried to arbritrarily insert the idea that all issues, of any kind, raised by the reviews have been addressed by patches, based, apparantly, entirely on your own opinion that the game is fantastic, and therefore cannot be legitimately criticised in any way, backed up by one sentence that uses the phrase 'fully patched' in one article and your own faulty understanding of what 'fully patched' actually means. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to rewrite the section so that no reference is made to this issue at all (or, indeed, simply remove the sentence in question) I have no objection. What I do have an objection to is Jinx perpetrating a factual inaccuracy based purely on his own opinion, and in face of the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:48, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with Learn Together here. It's silly to argue the definition of "fully patched" and really, I'm not sure how it's entirely relevant to the issue at hand. Why don't we focus on making the entire article better and, as Learn Together said, address what the issues with the current game are, not what issues may or may not have been fixed. We are spending way to much time talking about game patches, when the article is not about game patches. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:PS: Jinx, you say the "plain, straight-forward" definition is that fully patched means nothing left is wrong, and I would disagree. Fully patched means, especially in this context, that all of the current patches have been applied, not that there are no more holes which need a patch. The hacking analogy might be erroneous (and I'm not saying that it is), but this doesn't mean necesessarily that his conclusion is erronious. I'm afraid I still don't see how this fits in to the entire article, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::In short, it's a very minor point in the article, which is why I have zero objections to it being removed entirely. I have been trying to bring some balance to the 'Reviews' section (as, in it's original form, it seemed to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias'), and Jinx has been very grudgingly giving ground when he's been more or less forced to. For some reason, though, he has dug his heels firmly in, and refuses to budge on this, and wants to claim that there are no issues or complaints raised by the reviews that haven't been patched, despite simply looking at the reviews referenced within the article and comparing that with the list of fixes in the patchnotes (also referenced within the article) indicates this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:52, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't think either helpjazz or myself wants to imply that we taking sides in your discussion in such a way as to denigrate either of you. You both have strong passions and feel strongly about certain aspects of how the article should be presented. Both of you can be valued contributors to the site and we hope both of you will be in the future. Any solution we reach here is not meant to be a 'right' or 'wrong' solution, but rather one that incorporates all of the information that both of you have given in such a form that the article is fair and upholds Conservapedia standards. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:29, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have an article from January 2008 that states the game is fully patched to back up my position. You have reviews from almost a year and a half ago to back up your's. Who do you think has a more reliable source for the current version of the game? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:15, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::::And you're still completely and utterly missing the point, even though I have said it, multiple times, in as clear language as I can. What you obviously think 'fully patched' means is not what 'fully patched' actually means. Got it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::No, I'm not missing the point. You think "fully patched" means "not fully patched" because some hacker yahoos created a new breach in ONE FLIPPING PROGRAM OUT OF THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, that statement is yet further evidence that you ''are'' missing the point, and, basically, haven't even read what I have written on here (or, indeed, even read all the links you're referring to). What more can I say? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Tell me, O keeper of what basic English phrases actually mean, if hackers had not "found" (created) this new exploit of Windows, what leg would you have thought you had to stand on? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, you're providing yet more evidence you're missing the point, plus providing more evidence you didn't actually read all the links I provided. Try going back and reading over everything I have said here, actually reading the links I provided, doing the Google search I asked you to do three times, which you still apparantly haven't actually done, and making sure you actually understand all the information I have directed you towards (feel free to ask for clarification on anything you don't), and maybe we can have a discussion on the matter at hand, instead of rehashing things already covered. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add, or are you just going to repeat "you're missing the point" ad nauseum and lying that I didn't read all the links? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::Well, your last couple of statements are a pretty clear indication you are, indeed, missing the point, and, if you had read all the links, you would realise that certain details in your last couple of statements are simply wrong, so you're making those statements either through ignorance or an attempt at deliberate deception. I chose 'ignorance', as it leaves you in a better light. Was I wrong to do that? If you require a hint as to what, exactly, is wrong with your statements, well, that's something that is also already covered - try the fifth sentence in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&diff=407820&oldid=407769 this] edit of mine. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:02, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

As a professional [[computer programmer]], I can assure you that [[software release]]s tend to be buggy, especially when there is publication pressure. Computer game developers are usually under tremendous pressure to grab [[market share]], but a "pressured programmer" is a sloppy programmer. It takes time to get things right.

I'm sure there are many [[software bug]]s in "Left Behind". How fast these are being fixed, I have no idea. Whether free patches or [[service pack]]s are being given to customers, I also have no idea.

I suggest we divide the commentary on the game into two sections:
#the story line of the game
#technical issues

Various groups will have ideological reactions to the game's themes of [[tribulation]] and [[rapture]]. It's astonishing that a Jewish group would apparently defend a [[fundamentalist Christian]] idea, but if ADL says it's not [[anti-Semitic]] I got to go along with that: they set the bar very high.

I don't think we need to list all the technical issues, but I wouldn't mind a [[spinoff article]] called [[Technical issues in Left Behind]] or [[Technical issues in Eternal Forces]].

No need to fight over whether the patches are sufficient; just quote the various sources, perhaps in chronological order. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I really don't see a need for any spinoff articles beyond one for the sequel. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, what I was actually somewhat surprised at was that, with the exception of Talk To Action, plus one or two other who seemingly believed Talk To Action's lies, the reaction to the general concept of the game was very positive. Even the negative reviews referred to in the article basically summarise the game as 'good concept, but badly executed'. This even includes the supposedly 'religiously biased' Game Revolution review that said it 'wastes a good premise'. I agree that we don't need to list all the technical issues (and I would even go further and say there is no pressing need to refer to reviews at all), but, if we are going to refer to reviews, we need to make sure that the general thrust of those reviews is accurately reflected, whether we agree with them or not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces

2008-03-20T01:46:40Z

Urushnor: /* Edit war */

Uhhh... criticism of issues within the game isn't allowed? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:32, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Sure it is, but snarky, unsourced (love the hypocrisy of that) edits like yours aren't. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::I think I may have misinterpreted that statement, but... Sir, are you accusing me of making nothing but snarky, hypocritcal edits? For that matter, how is it hypocritical? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::That edit was snarky and hypocritical, yes. It is snarky because it was made simply to be obnoxious and hypocritical because you questioned unsourced material in the [[Video game]] article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::Ah. Gotcha. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then. I shall read more carefully next time. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:There is a large and well referenced section on controversy and criticism. All you added was unreferenced parody. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::All of which focuses on claims made before the game came out. It wasn't parody. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Wait, what am I talking about? The last sentence was. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::So you freely admit you learned nothing from your recent block and are continuing to edit disruptively? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I've edited the 'controversy and criticism' section to be a bit more accurate. With the exception of Max Blumenthal's blog, the cited sources do not, in fact, criticise the game - they report others criticising the game, and also give quotes from Left Behind Games refuting that criticism. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:46, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Jinxmchue, I do not know why you keep reverting my edit. You seem to be trying to say that all of the complaints have been addressed by patches. This is simply not the case. You provided a [http://www.lbgstore.com/lebetrfoupcd.html URL] that would allow me to purchase an add-on CD that would update the game with the Tribulation Forces expansion. Well, that's a paid-for expansion, not a free patch. If you were directing me to the patchnotes for the various patches to the base game underneath that, if you compare that with the complaints voiced in the various sources in the article, this simply proves that not all the complaints have been addressed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:28, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:"Many" and "most" also mean "more than one and less than all of them." Why not use those words (which actually would be more accurate since there are very few issues left (if any) regarding the original criticisms)? My link in my summary was to provide an idea of the number of issues Left Behind Games has addressed with their upgrades. The list is dozens of items long. How many more issues do you think are left to address? And despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:: Well, if you were saying that 'many' or 'most' is more accurate, why did YOU not change it to that, instead of reverting it to remove any word that suggested not all the complaints had been addressed? I would actually say that 'some' is more accurate anyway, as whilst quite a few of the complaints have been addressed, it seems to be some of the ones that aren't are actually the most severe ('lousy controls' and the poor graphics for two examples). As to your statement, 'despite what you erroneously think, saying "Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address the complaints" does not automatically imply all the issues have been addressed', sorry, but yes, it does. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:37, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Complaints vs. patches ==

I intend to write up something (for Talk at least) comparing the complaints about the game to the various issues that were covered by the patches. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Already done that.

:This is the list of complaints in the various reviews in the article:
#Lousy Controls
#Too much micromanagement
#Bad AI
#Poor graphics and art design
#Lack of single-player skirmish mode
#Slow multiplayer
#Watered-down storyline
#All the units look the same
#Repetitive gameplay
#Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
#Borderline racism (quite a number of the 'bad guys' have Arab, Indian, African, etc, names and appearances, but mysteriously lose this when they're 'recruited' and become Caucasian)
#Bad level design (sections of the city blocked off for no good reason, for example)
#Frequent crashes and lock-ups
#Seems to give a mixed message (the subject matter and tone of the game is very righteous, but then lets you play as the Antichrist in multiplayer)
#Poor quality of voice-acting
#Too much advertising in the game

Complaints addressed in the patches:

#Too much micromanagement (eased but not fully addressed)
#Bad AI (unclear whether all isuues were addressed or not)
#Poor graphics and art design (partially addressed by improving the shadows on 'high end systems')
#Slow multiplayer
#Frequent crashes and lock-ups (not clear whether completely fixed)

Complaints remaining unaddressed:

#Lousy controls
#Lack of single-player skirmish mode
#Watered-down storyline
#All the units look the same
#Repetitive gameplay
#Misogynistic 50s-style sexism
#Borderline racism
#Bad level design
#Seems to give a mixed message
#Poor quality of voice-acting
#Too much advertising in the game

Issues fixed in the patches NOT mentioned in the reviews:

#Multiplayer Chat tab enabled. You can now chat with players online before you join a game.
#Female Recruiters added.
#Mission 2 - Teddy can now visit the finish zone at any time without issues.
#Mission 4 - Teddy can now speak to Mary.
#Mission 6 - The first 7 friends can be trained and the mission will now end upon bringing the final 10 friends to the Chapel (provided they are still all on your side).
#Mission 8 - An extra building is available to be acquired.
#Demons can withstand heavy physical attacks. Attack them with good spiritual warfare.
#Various playbalancing and fixes including sound transitions and multiplayer server list.
#Multiplayer Buddy List enabled.
#Enhanced join server screen with game parameters listed.
#GameSpy profile integration. Create a profile or use an existing one to create your buddy list.
#3 New Multiplayer Maps including upgraded units at the start of the game for quick skirmish action.
#Vocal Warnings for events.
#Improved Sound System compatibility and sound playback.
#Improved LGBHelp system for better support to our users, including an auto-config based on system specs.
#Various mission playbalancing and fixes.
#When logged in with a GameSpy Profile ID, Gold and Silver users will have auto buddy list requests and their buddy’s multiplayer games will be listed first.
#Buddy List graphical enhancements.
#Winning point limit (if applicable) is shown during a multiplayer game.
#Improved navigation for multiplayer game creation.
#Demons are now displayed in a dark grey color.
#4X4 Skirmish map timer fixed.
#Improved support for multiplayer hosting – UPnP support added.
#Chat filter implemented.
#Added more stats to the end of a multiplayer game, including an overall summary of all players.
#Allied units display as such when clicked in multiplayer.
#Multiplayer skirmish maps are easier to find on the map selection screen.
#Voice of God and Angels implemented for evil actions.
#Mission 4 - The Chapel is pinged when Mary is active.
#Mission 19 - Defending time shortened.
#Mission 23 - Phantom enemy vehicles removed.
#Mission 32 – Buck can get his disguise upon mission start.
#Mission 36 - Defending time shortened.
#Mission 37 – GCP Camp now pinged.
#Many other text revisions and mission improvements
#AUTO recruit improved even further – Evil units that turn neutral are now auto recruited as well.
#Building Icons added to the game screen for easier ID of user’s buildings.
#Right mouse to follow a friendly unit implemented (Alt-Right Click still works too).
#Multiple Helicopter spawning issue fixed.
#Replay Load VO overlap fixed.
#The Scroll description has been revised.
#Spiritual influence now does two times damage to demons.
#Alt-Tab Camera issue fixed.
#No longer able to attempt to follow enemy or neutral vehicles.
#Event noise modified.
#Menu enhancements providing more intuitive feedback to the user.
#A military unit must be in a military vehicle in order for the vehicle to fire.
#Sat-Com special ability has been enhanced, now a triangle will display in the minimap and H will display the type of building in the main screen.
#Firearm range increased slightly.
#Maximum number of items in inventory for each type is now 2.
#Minor gameplay tweaks and unit balances.
#Tutorial 2 - Allows for different combination of units to make the camp available.
#Tutorial 3 - Fixed intermittant crash after Musician was trained.
#Fixed crash on start occurring with the mutltiplayer enhancement pack version for some older machines.
#Tutorial 2 – Auto recruit is taught instead of manual recruit taking advantage of the auto recruit improvements for ease of use.
#Additional auto-configuration based on system specs for Intel based graphic adapters (Note: these adapters are not officially supported, but may work).
#Forfeit button added for multiplayer games.
#Gamespy buddy authorization pop-up reminder added.
#Multiplayer hints describing functionality of each menu button including expanded buddy list explanations.
#Minimap building filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of building when activated. Make finding types of building much easier.
#Owned buildings now display in the players color at all times for easy recognition.
#Evil Hero revision to Enigma Leader.
#Chat window multiple selection from menu fixed.
#Gamespy creation or login will display a not valid warning if it has a space in the name.
#Password protected multiplayer games are now displayed with a lock on the join screen.
#Version number of server’s game is now displayed on the join screen when a game is selected.
#Multiplayer skirmish maps have been rebalanced to be even at the start of the game. Evil used to have 1 extra unit.
#New clue music.
#Incorrect VO not playing anymore on level 4 load screen.
#Mouse handedness is taken from system mouse settings and is no longer clickable from options menu. If you want to change it, use the Windows Control Panel/Mouse.
#Gamespy profile file no longer displays password for added protection.
#Screen flickering fixed when leaving a multiplayer game someone quit out of early.
#Lengthy email address truncating fixed on Gamespy create window.
#Point limit and time limit now display on multiplayer replays.
#Correct message now appears to the server when the client quits the game early in a 2 player game.
#VO pauses when the pause key is pressed.
#Gamespy Voice Chat muting options. Players can be muted in the game lobby and with the Chat options screen from the in-game menu. Note: Enemy players will be muted upon starting the game. Note: Port 31322 UDP must be opened to enjoy voice chatting.
#Microphone Volume control and testing capability within the Audio tab of the Options window.
#Major UI overhaul - new graphical enhancements and improvements.
#Collision improvements between neutral units and vehicles.
#Multiplayer hint toggle is now in the Game tab of the Options window.
#Minimap unit filters. Icons are now on the minimap that will ping the type of unit when activated. It makes finding a type of unit much easier.
#Unit and Building selection icons. One click selection of a unit type and one click goto building type functionality added to the interface.
#Units inside building displayed. When you mouse over a building with units inside, the unit icons will display on screen.
#Recruiting fix for fast walking neutrals - the unit will now stop to be recruited.
#To/From voice chat options included. Now you have the ability to choose who hears your voice chat.
#Text chat muting. You can now mute text chat from specific players in game.
#Fixed loud noise upon start on some machines.
#Various mission scripting enhancements for additional audio sequences.
#Revised Tutorial 1 by adding a neutral unit and an evil unit as visual aids.
#Revised Left Handed VO and text in the tutorials to be more clear.
#Revised missions 22, 31, and 35 to decrease difficulty.
#National and International Banks now have sound when clicked.
#A Friend was added to the start of Mission 27.
#Revised missions 17, 20, 23, and 30 to decrease difficulty.
[[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not quite. Thanks for trying to beat me to the punch, though, in order to push your own agenda against this game. Oh, and I particularly liked the inclusion of "Misogynistic 50s-style sexism" and "Borderline racism." The only patch that's going to address those complaints is the one that works on the software between the complainers' ears. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Well, actually, I can think of a couple of ways the developers can patch in something to address those complaints, but that's pretty much irrelevant - you were originally saying ALL the complaints had been addressed by the patches, which simply isn't the case. As for your comment about 'pushing my own agenda', does this mean you are claiming the above points listed as not being in the reviews aren't in the patchnotes? Or are you saying that those points are, in fact, mentioned in the reviews? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I will give DanH a chance to explain how he thinks the above information 'vindicates' Jinxmchue, so I will leave the article in it's current form. If I receive no answer, however, I will alter it to be accurate to what the above seems to indicate - that the patches fix dozens of issues, including some of the issues raised by the complaints in the reviews. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:Threats now? I would really reconsider that if I were you. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, statement of intent. DanH has now seemingly understood what I was saying, so I've redone the edit. The relevant passage, in it's old form, seemed to say that all the fixes in the patches, without exception, were as a direct result of the complaints in the reviews, which, in light of the above, seems blindingly obvious is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, yet again, you edit the article, inserting incorrect comments. If you remove the 'non-technical' complaints from the list above, that is still 5 addressed (and not even all of those completely) out of 12. That is not 'most'. As for the perceived racism and sexism, the developers could patch it so that both sides have units with African, Arabic, Indian, etc names and appearances (or, at the very least, the units which do have these features don't mysteriously become Caucasian when they're 'recruited'), and that the units are known by the same title whether they be male or female, instead of it being a 'Recruiter', for example, if they're male, and a 'Female Recruiter' if they're female, as if this is somehow something different. As such, your statement that this cannot be patched is blatently your own opinion, or simply wrong, or both. Take your pick. As for complaints about the game's 'theology', as far as I can see, there were none. The closest that came to this was one review said that the game gave mixed messages by being very righteous in tone and content, but then lets you play as the Antichrist. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is your ''personal opinion'' that is being used as a source to defend the use of "some." But the point is moot now as I have just added a reference which states that the game is fully patched (the version included with "Tribulation Forces" is the same version as the latest update for the original game). End of discussion. Point. Set. Match. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::Erm, relevant section from your source:
::::'''What is included in this expansion?'''

::::Besides getting a fully patched version of Eternal Forces, you get five new story line missions for the second chapter, Tribulation Forces. There is a new single and multiplayer game mode call skirmish. In this mode you choose a map, what team you want to play, and how many allies or enemies you want. To win you have to earn and maintain a certain number of points. To gain points you have to win over neutrals to your side and build up your forces.

::::There is a new group you can play, The American Militia. This is an army that is neutral spiritual wise and they are allies with the Tribulation Forces and combat the Anti-Christ’s army. With the American Militia there is no peaceful way to neutralize the enemy. Fortunately, when you do kill them, there is no blood.''

::This does not say there are no issues remaining - it means the version of Eternal Forces you get has all the patches so far released already applied. Try reading and understanding your own sources. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:23, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I should add - I think your accusation of 'my opinion being used to defend the use of ''some''' is particularly ironic, given that it appears very clear that you have been trying to impose your opinion that this game is absolutely excellent and cannot have any valid complaints levelled against it on this article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh, please. "Fully patched" means "fully patched." You are applying unprovable standards to that phrase which cannot be verified. Continue to try to push your disproven agenda and you actions will be reported. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:36, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Do a Google search for 'fully patched'. You'll get hits like [http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=254 this], [http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-exploit-blows-by-fully-patched.html this], [http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/09/new_attack_compromises_fullypatched_ie_browsers.html this], [http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/0046258 this], [http://securitywatch.eweek.com/microsoft_windows/driveby_exploit_plants_trojans_on_fully_patched_iewindows_systems.html this], [http://www.geek.com/fully-patched-firefox-browser-has-extensions-vulnerability/ this], [http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6230 this], [http://www.2-spyware.com/news/post243.html this], [http://digg.com/tech_news/New_exploit_blows_by_fully_patched_Windows_XP_systems this] and [http://virtualization.sys-con.com/read/166894.htm this]. That's just a few samples from the first 2 or 3 pages that most effectively prove my point - which is that you are utterly and completely wrong. 'Fully patched' does not mean 'no issues left', it means 'all patches so far applied'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I've done a compromise (again) - I've kept your edit, but altered it to be accurate, in light of the above, and moved your source to a more appropriate place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:55, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Reviews ==

I believe this section could be better. Aspects that are said to be poor by some reviews are said to be superior by other reviews below. We want to make it easy for our readers to get a feel as to how the game plays. It's best to just record information that is agreed upon. Also, the line that indicates the product suffered from "bugs... crashes" is misleading. Virutally all new products suffer from bugs and crashes. The question is what makes the game different, and, of course, what is it like after its patches?

:Going by a couple of the reviews, this game suffered more than most from bugs and crashes. Gamespot, for example, reported that, 'Crashes are such a frequent occurrence that it seems like you've got maybe 50/50 odds between a level or a save loading properly and the game freezing up with a sound loop. Sometimes it also hard locks Windows in these circumstances, forcing a system reboot. This was even a problem for us during automatic restarts after changing the in-game resolution. The only way we could change any of the default visual settings was to manually shut down and restart the game, because letting it restart on its own always locked up our system and necessitated a reboot.' As to what extent the patches fixed thing like this, that isn't clear. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I would also suggest using the opportunity of the article protection to reach wording that both of you can agree with instead of reverting. Your differences appeared to be minor, and there was no reason to force Dan to intervene and lock the article over a small difference that you should have been able to solve in other ways. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I've compromised a couple of times, but Jinx appears hell-bent on pushing his agenda of 'this game is superb, and no-one can actually level any valid criticism against it', come what may. As far as I'm concerned, the article, in it's current form, if anything, is slightly biased in the game's favour (though far less than it was before I started editing it), due to the inclusion, by Jinx, of such phrases as 'Left Behind Games subsequently issued several patches to address dozens of issues', as if this is something unusual (it's not - most, if not all, games developers typically bring out patches post-release that address many issues), and, for another example, the implication that the Game Revolution review was poor due to religious reasons, despite the fact the reviewer specifically makes the point he believes in the freedom of people to believe what they like (and his corresponding freedom to believe they're all nuts), and actually cites various gameplay, graphical and technical reasons for giving the game a poor rating. That doesn't seem good enough for Jinx, however. It seems very obvious that saying that all the criticisms and issues raised by the various reviews have been addressed is simply not true, but Jinx seems to be going out of his way to try to reinsert this into the article at every opportunity and using any excuse, so, in my opinion, it should be left as is, or that sentence removed entirely, and the first sentence of that paragraph reworded to 'Some of the complaints in the initial reviews of the game...'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::<sigh> Well, your very first sentence there shows us exactly who is the one pushing their agenda. The only "agreement" or "compromise" that you want is the one that favors your biased view. I've actually provided a reference that says the game is fully patched. Your "only some of the issues were addressed" is based on... what? Your say-so and nothing more. Hrm... Reference vs. your say-so. Which is more trustworthy? And the article is hardly "slightly biased in the game's favour." It has presented both sides from the beginning. Oh, and I like your oh-so humble "It's less biased now that ''I'' started editing it! Dun-da-da-DA!" bit. Give me a flipping break! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, by the way, this is CONSERVApedia, not WIKIpedia, so get used to the articles having bias against your point of view. Either that or leave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinx, do I need to tell you to play nice again? Anyone is allowed to edit conservapedia, and you are in no position to tell people to leave. Please behave! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::I wasn't telling him to leave. I was saying that he'd better get used to Conservapedia's conservative slant (duh!) being against his point of view and if he doesn't, then he should (not must) leave. I was suggesting a course of action, not making a demand. In fact, I didn't even need to suggest that option because he probably would find himself unwittingly made to leave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinx, for your claim of 'fully patched', see the section immediately above this. 'Fully patched' does not mean what you obviously think it means. As for what I base the idea that not all issues have been addressed, again, that is clearly laid out in the section above. So far, all you have done is assert that you are right and I am wrong, nothing more. Conversely, I am putting what the '''cited references in the article''' say, not my own personal opinion, and I didn't even put those references in, so how you can say that it is ME pushing an agenda, is, quite frankly, a total mystery. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::So... "Fully patched" doesn't actually mean "fully patched," but "not fully/only partially patched?" Because YOU (and only you) say so? And does "black" mean "white" and "up" mean "down," too? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jinx, did you, as I said, actually do a Google search for the term? Here, I've [http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%40fully+patched%27&meta=&btnG=Google+Search done one for you]. Go through those, and count how many times you can see that 'fully patched' is definitely used to mean 'there are no issues left to be addressed'. What I have stated as the meaning of 'fully patched' is the NORMAL USAGE OF THE TERM. It would be more correct to say that YOU are claiming that it means 'no issues left to be addressed' because that is what YOU claim it means, and no-one else. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yeah, I read your arguments about what "fully patched" means and dismissed them as utterly ridiculous. How exactly does the fact that some hackers found a new way past Windows security reflect at all on either the term "fully patched" or "Eternal Forces?" The issues are so completely dissimilar that I find it difficult to believe that even you cannot see it. Windows was fully patched until the hackers worked to find another exploit. So Microsoft will issue a patch for that and the program will once again be fully patched. That they did not have a patch for this new issue before it happened (that'd be one heck of a trick if they did!) does not mean it wasn't fully patched. "Fully patched" continues to mean "fully patched." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, and what you're seemingly totally blind to is that those articles are talking about an exploit/bug/whatever that was known at the time the article was written, but still using the term 'fully patched' to describe Windows XP/Internet Explorer/whatever other software it was talking about. Indeed, if you look at some of the hits that I didn't point out, what do you get? Things like ones talking about World of Warcraft 'fully patched' to version 2.3. If you read the [http://worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/test-realm-patchnotes.html patch notes] for the upcoming 2.4 patch, you see several fixes, and I can tell you some of those are issues that have been known about for a while. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Again, that this new exploit came out does not change the fact that the program was fully patched. And this issue is completely unlike "Eternal Forces." There are no hackers working to break into the "Eternal Forces" program. If there was no exploit created for Windows, what then? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on with this argument. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::No, according to YOUR definition of 'fully patched', at the time the articles were written, the various bits of software they are talking about were NOT 'fully patched', yet the articles still call them 'fully patched'. Face it, Jinx, you are simply wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::"My" definition of "fully patched" is taken from basic, straight-forward usage of the English language. Whatever weird definition you are using (in which "fully patched" means "not fully patched") is not going to be understood by the general public. And it was ONE article written RECENTLY (January) which calls the version of "Eternal Forces" which is included with its sequel (and is the same version as the original game with all patches) "fully patched." You're the one who is wrong and I'm tired of your idiotic, senseless arguments. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:42, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::You have provided ONE article where the term 'fully patched' is used in reference to Eternal Forces, as supposed proof that Eternal Forces has no issues remaining with it. To back that up, all you have done is assert that 'fully patched' means that 'there are no issues remaining', and repeated that 'fully patched means fully patched', like it's some kind of mantra. In comparison, I have provided multiple articles where the term 'fully patched' is being used to refer to software that clearly does have issues remaining, and, indeed, asked you to simply do a Google search for the term (and even done one for you, and linked it) and count how many times the term is clearly used in the way you claim. You appear to simply refuse to do that. As for your definition of 'fully patched' being taken from 'basic, straight-forward usage of the English language', well, let's just put it this way - I fail to see how the definition of 'the full range of available patches have been applied' does not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:51, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I should also point out that you keep repeating 'fully patched means fully patched', like that actually means something. Sorry, it doesn't. If you have fundamentally misunderstood what 'fully patched' actually means, and are therefore trying to apply it incorrectly, then all you're doing is misusing a phrase twice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::It does mean something despite your desire for it to mean something else or nothing. You are trying to argue that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched," which is nonsensical. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: How clear do I have to say it? If you are getting the meaning of 'fully patched' wrong, then simply repeating the phrase twice is, indeed, meaningless. If I claimed that 'religion' meant 'a particular way of passing wind', then tried to back that up by simply repeating 'religion means religion' several times, you'd view my argument as non-existant and stupid (and quite rightly so). That, basically, is what you're doing. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I should also add that your claim of the article 'presenting both sides from the start' is questionable to say the least. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&direction=next&oldid=393348#Reviews Here] is the relevant section before I started editing it. Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else (even though if you actually read the one [http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind review] actually quoted there, well, that's the Game Revolution review, which I've talked about above, and one thing I left out is that one of the reasons it actually marks the game down for is that it 'wastes a good premise'. That hardly sounds like 'religious bias' to me). What's the next diff? Me clarifying there was more than religious reasons for criticising the game. The one after that? You reverting my edit, claiming that my point has nothing to do with the subject, even though that section is called 'Reviews', and I'm quoting directly from the same review. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:29, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Quoting you:
:::::''"Now, this seems to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias' rather than anything else[.]"''
::::Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! I used the word "some" just like you! Quoting me:
:::::''"Some of the reviews were more about the reviewers' personal bias against religion in general or evangelical Christianity specifically."''
::::See? Some, not all. SOME, not ALL. Man, you have a serious problem with what does or does not imply something or other, don't you? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, some of the reviews. Not all the reviews gave a low rating. Now, if you had said, 'some of the negative reviews', you might have a point. But you didn't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Honestly, your arguments getting more and more stupid. Does it really need to be "some of the negative reviews" instead of "some of the reviews?" The latter is not incorrect or inaccurate despite what you erroneously think.

::::::: ....except in the way it implies that the 'some' of the reviews it's talking about is the negative ones. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Besides, how do we know that those who gave positive reviews don't have personal biases against religion which they simply did not put into the reviews? We don't. Adding the word "negative" to the sentence is unnecessary and ridiculous, and in fact would introduce bias against the negative reviews. I thought were supposedly against bias. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::So, what you're saying is that you're free to make any ridiculous assertation you like, and it is up to me to provide evidence you're wrong, rather than you actually providing evidence you're correct? Sorry, doesn't work that way - if you make a claim, you have to prove it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, have any of you played the game? Reviews are interesting, but I wouldn't mind some firsthand knowledge either. How does it really play? For instance the first Age of Empires could also go slow during huge battle scenes, but it was still an excellent game. And, I would be interested in how it plays after patches more than problems it had at first. While initial shortcomings can be mentioned as a footnote, what our readership will really want to know is what could they expect if they played it themselves in the present? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:Go to my user page, find my "shameless plug for my blog," and scroll about a quarter of the way down my blog to my latest post about the game (including links to my previous posts). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting reading. Thing is, it seems to confirm that you are pushing your opinion of the game, instead of relying on objective facts. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It does no such thing and you know it. The only thing I'm pushing is the truth, which you are rejecting based upon your own pushing of your opinion. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, just ask yourself this - who is it that's disagreeing with the cited sources in the article, even the ones he put in himself? Who is it that's actually providing evidence to back up what he's saying, rather than merely asserting that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong? I'll give you a hint - the answer to the first question is NOT 'Urushnor', and the answer to the second is NOT 'Jinxmchue'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::I wish to reiterate again that whatever form the article ultimately takes, that there are no winners or losers here. You have both provided valuable information that has improved the article beyond what it could have been had you not contributed and both of you are held in high regard for your work and insights. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

Can someone explain, in simple, non-ad hominem terms, what this edit war is about? It looks to me like you are moving one citation back and forth between paragraphs. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:11, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree gentlemen that this seems silly. You both could be using the effort that you put towards this small difference to instead be creating constructive edits across Conservapedia. I really wish you would help us by looking at the bigger picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:18, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

The issue is about what "fully patched" (from the second paragraph of [http://www.ccgr.org/computer/left-behind-tribulation-forces.html this reference]) means in regards to the game. I have taken the plain, straight-forward English position (which the vast majority of average readers will understand) that "fully patched" means "fully patched" while Urushie apparently thinks (and I've never seen him say otherwise) that "fully patched" means "not fully patched." He has tried to argue that since hackers created a security breach in a fully patched version of Windows that means that "fully patched" doesn't mean "fully patched" in all instances, and ignoring the painfully obvious and insurmountable difference between people deliberately hacking Windows to create problems and a game which people aren't trying to hack into. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:40, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I am suggesting a rewrite of the reviews section. I also notice that information in the reviews section about the game is not included elsewhere, such as using actual images and logos from New York City. Factual information about the game should never first appear under the reviews area.

The reviews are pertinent, but we have references for them if people want to check them up. It is understood that initial versions will have bugs that need to be addressed, but that should not be the focus. The focus should be on how the game plays after the fixes. On a different note, fully patched does not mean that all greivances ever brought up about the game have been solved. The developers of the game would not even have any way of knowing all of those greivances. It does mean that playability issues as presented in the patch documentation have been resolved. It should also be pointed out that some of the greivances raised against the game are ideological or differences of opinion in what makes a fun game. People who want a shoot 'em up will not be happy with Left Behind: Eternal Forces, nor should an effort be made to make them happy. Our article should report about the game and what it is as the focus. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, actually, Jinx, what you would have realised, had you bothered to read what I have written, is that 'fully patched' means 'all available patches have been applied', as I have stated several times. According to you, however, it means 'any and all issues of any kind have been addressed by patches'. As I have also stated above, saying that 'fully patched means fully patched' means nothing if you are not giving the proper meaning of 'fully patched' in the first place. At no time have I said 'fully patched does not mean fully patched', I have said, repeatedly, that what you have claimed 'fully patched' actually means is simply wrong. The idea that the links I provided are people 'creating problems' with Windows (and, in fact, the different links I supplied referred to several bits of software, not just Windows, so try reading them) shows you are ignorant of fairly basic facts on the subject. Hackers and crackers don't 'create' problems with Windows, etc, they FIND them. The malware they create are only designed to take advantage of existing problems, of one kind or another. Thus, the links I provided disprove your definition of 'fully patched' (that any and all issues are fixed). If that weren't enough try simply doing a Google search for the phrase, and count how many times the phrase is clearly used to mean what you claim it means. I have already asked you to do this twice, and you apparantly simply refuse. To date, you have utterly failed to actually provide any evidence, bar your own assertion, that you are correct, but, instead, have repeatedly tried to arbritrarily insert the idea that all issues, of any kind, raised by the reviews have been addressed by patches, based, apparantly, entirely on your own opinion that the game is fantastic, and therefore cannot be legitimately criticised in any way, backed up by one sentence that uses the phrase 'fully patched' in one article and your own faulty understanding of what 'fully patched' actually means. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to rewrite the section so that no reference is made to this issue at all (or, indeed, simply remove the sentence in question) I have no objection. What I do have an objection to is Jinx perpetrating a factual inaccuracy based purely on his own opinion, and in face of the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 18:48, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with Learn Together here. It's silly to argue the definition of "fully patched" and really, I'm not sure how it's entirely relevant to the issue at hand. Why don't we focus on making the entire article better and, as Learn Together said, address what the issues with the current game are, not what issues may or may not have been fixed. We are spending way to much time talking about game patches, when the article is not about game patches. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:PS: Jinx, you say the "plain, straight-forward" definition is that fully patched means nothing left is wrong, and I would disagree. Fully patched means, especially in this context, that all of the current patches have been applied, not that there are no more holes which need a patch. The hacking analogy might be erroneous (and I'm not saying that it is), but this doesn't mean necesessarily that his conclusion is erronious. I'm afraid I still don't see how this fits in to the entire article, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::In short, it's a very minor point in the article, which is why I have zero objections to it being removed entirely. I have been trying to bring some balance to the 'Reviews' section (as, in it's original form, it seemed to imply that all the negative reviews were down to 'religious bias'), and Jinx has been very grudgingly giving ground when he's been more or less forced to. For some reason, though, he has dug his heels firmly in, and refuses to budge on this, and wants to claim that there are no issues or complaints raised by the reviews that haven't been patched, despite simply looking at the reviews referenced within the article and comparing that with the list of fixes in the patchnotes (also referenced within the article) indicates this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:52, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't think either helpjazz or myself wants to imply that we taking sides in your discussion in such a way as to denigrate either of you. You both have strong passions and feel strongly about certain aspects of how the article should be presented. Both of you can be valued contributors to the site and we hope both of you will be in the future. Any solution we reach here is not meant to be a 'right' or 'wrong' solution, but rather one that incorporates all of the information that both of you have given in such a form that the article is fair and upholds Conservapedia standards. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:29, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have an article from January 2008 that states the game is fully patched to back up my position. You have reviews from almost a year and a half ago to back up your's. Who do you think has a more reliable source for the current version of the game? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:15, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::::And you're still completely and utterly missing the point, even though I have said it, multiple times, in as clear language as I can. What you obviously think 'fully patched' means is not what 'fully patched' actually means. Got it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::No, I'm not missing the point. You think "fully patched" means "not fully patched" because some hacker yahoos created a new breach in ONE FLIPPING PROGRAM OUT OF THOUSAND AND THOUSANDS. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, that statement is yet further evidence that you ''are'' missing the point, and, basically, haven't even read what I have written on here (or, indeed, even read all the links you're referring to). What more can I say? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Tell me, O keeper of what basic English phrases actually mean, if hackers had not "found" (created) this new exploit of Windows, what leg would you have thought you had to stand on? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, you're providing yet more evidence you're missing the point, plus providing more evidence you didn't actually read all the links I provided. Try going back and reading over everything I have said here, actually reading the links I provided, doing the Google search I asked you to do three times, which you still apparantly haven't actually done, and making sure you actually understand all the information I have directed you towards (feel free to ask for clarification on anything you don't), and maybe we can have a discussion on the matter at hand, instead of rehashing things already covered. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 21:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

As a professional [[computer programmer]], I can assure you that [[software release]]s tend to be buggy, especially when there is publication pressure. Computer game developers are usually under tremendous pressure to grab [[market share]], but a "pressured programmer" is a sloppy programmer. It takes time to get things right.

I'm sure there are many [[software bug]]s in "Left Behind". How fast these are being fixed, I have no idea. Whether free patches or [[service pack]]s are being given to customers, I also have no idea.

I suggest we divide the commentary on the game into two sections:
#the story line of the game
#technical issues

Various groups will have ideological reactions to the game's themes of [[tribulation]] and [[rapture]]. It's astonishing that a Jewish group would apparently defend a [[fundamentalist Christian]] idea, but if ADL says it's not [[anti-Semitic]] I got to go along with that: they set the bar very high.

I don't think we need to list all the technical issues, but I wouldn't mind a [[spinoff article]] called [[Technical issues in Left Behind]] or [[Technical issues in Eternal Forces]].

No need to fight over whether the patches are sufficient; just quote the various sources, perhaps in chronological order. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I really don't see a need for any spinoff articles beyond one for the sequel. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, what I was actually somewhat surprised at was that, with the exception of Talk To Action, plus one or two other who seemingly believed Talk To Action's lies, the reaction to the general concept of the game was very positive. Even the negative reviews referred to in the article basically summarise the game as 'good concept, but badly executed'. This even includes the supposedly 'religiously biased' Game Revolution review that said it 'wastes a good premise'. I agree that we don't need to list all the technical issues (and I would even go further and say there is no pressing need to refer to reviews at all), but, if we are going to refer to reviews, we need to make sure that the general thrust of those reviews is accurately reflected, whether we agree with them or not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-19T21:46:21Z

Urushnor: /* No evidence for this article period */