Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

John McCain

2008-02-12T03:39:43Z

Venfayth: /* Votes Missed */

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''John Sidney McCain III''' (born August 29, 1936)<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> is the senior Senator from the state of [[Arizona]], having served 20 years after replacing [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1986. He is currently the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain is a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 Election]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref> McCain is a Baptist.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html McCain Identifies Himself as a Baptist</ref>

McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in divorce in 1980. His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley.

==Early Life==
McCain was born in the [[Panama]] Canal Zone. He was educated in Alexandria, [[Virginia]] before receiving his Bachelors of Science from the [[United States Naval Academy]] in 1958.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref>

==Military Career==
McCain served in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 during the Vietnam Conflict and held as a Prisoner of War for seven years.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref> McCain graduated from the National War College in 1974. Upon his retirement from the Navy in 1981, as a Captain, he had been commended with the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross.<ref> [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>

==Political Career==
McCain was elected to the [[House of Representatives]] from Arizona's 1st district in 1982 and served two terms before being elected to the [[Senate]] in 1986. In 2000, he pursued the presidency but lost his bid for the Republican nomination to [[George W. Bush]], the first time he had lost an election.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref> John McCain is currently running for presidency of the United States as a Republican.

==Political Record==

#National defense: McCain, a veteran, has been strong on national defense and a consistent supporter of the [[Iraq War]].
#[[Abortion]]: On Senate votes directly concerning abortion, McCain has voted on the pro-life side.
#Government Spending. McCain has vigorously advocated for the elimination of so-called "[[pork-barrel]]" spending. He voted against President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Act on the grounds that it was too costly.
#[[Evolution]]: McCain's position is that [[intelligent design]] should be taught along with the [[theory of evolution]].
#[[Campaign finance]]: In 2002, McCain joined with liberal Democrat Russell Feingold to prohibit independent groups from advertising about a candidate within many weeks of an election. This law prohibits ads that do not even recommend for whom to vote, but merely urge people to contact their representatives concerning a vote that the representatives will make in Congress. A court recently declared this unconstitutional.
#[[Same-sex marriage]]: In 2006, McCain joined Democrats and liberal Republicans in voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage. Later, on ''Hardball'', McCain declared, "On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine." Also, McCain's home state of Arizona was the only state to defeat a marriage referendum (in 2006), as McCain did nothing to support it.
#[[Gambling]]: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law allows Indian nations (which get nearly all their money from unregulated casinos) to make unlimited political donations, even though political donations by American citizens are strictly limited and political spending by corporations is prohibited.
#Tax cuts: McCain opposed President George W. Bush's tax cuts, on the argument that cutting taxes without also cutting spending was not actually a tax cut, but was a tax on future generations. He now supports keeping the Bush tax cuts in place.
#Criticism of the religious right: In his unsuccessful campaign in 2000, McCain criticized elements of the religious right.
#[[Gun control]]: In 2002, McCain supported [[gun control]] by joining with [[Democrat]] [[Joseph Lieberman]] to push legislation that would shut down gun shows.<ref>[http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage10.html "Gun Shows and Gun Control: McCain Is at It Again!"]</ref>
#Immigration: In 2005-2006, McCain joined with liberal Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] to support a sweeping bill that was favorable to illegal aliens. It has not passed.
#"Gang of 14": On May 23, 2005, McCain was part of a group of 14 Senators who blocked the planned "nuclear option" for confirming blocked Republican nominees for the bench. Under this compromise a few judicial nominees were allowed to be confirmed (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor), but others (e.g., Henry Saad) remained blocked and had to withdraw.
#Senate Attendance Record. McCain has missed 33% of the Senate votes in early 2007, far more than the leading Democratic contenders.<ref>http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0331missedvotes0331.html</ref>

== Electability ==
McCain has the reputation as an independent-minded maverick <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid], [[Michael Shear|Michael D. Shear]], ''[[Washington Post]]'', March 15, 2007</ref> and Media Darling <ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/blumenthal McCain Mutiny], [[Max Blumenthal]], ''[[The Nation]]'', February 21, 2007</ref>. "McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the [[Mainstream media|mainstream liberal media]]." <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24669 'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms], [[David Limbaugh]], ''[[Human Events]]'', 01/25/2008</ref>

John McCain was a member of the [[Keating Five]], a scandal relating to the [[Savings and Loan Crisis]]. The Senate Ethics Committee criticized him for "questionable conduct."

John McCain has cancer (melanoma) and has undergone multiple operations for it.<ref>http://www.riskworld.com/PressRel/2001/01q3/PR01a027.htm</ref> Cancer was an issue that hurt the presidential candidacy of Paul Tsongas in 1992. However, it was not even mentioned in the 2004 presidential campaign, despite the fact that John Kerry was treated for prostate cancer in early 2003.

John McCain will is 71 years old, making him one of the oldest candidates to seek the presidency. Several issues relating to McCain's advanced aged and health have been discussed in the media.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/mccain.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref>

Among evangelicals, who form the multi-million vote bloc which was essential to electing President [[George W. Bush]], John McCain is weak on trust. [[James Dobson]], a leading evangelical, has already declared that he "would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."<ref>http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16473337.htm</ref> McCain has attempted to make amends with Dobson and the late evangelical leader [[Jerry Falwell]], including speaking at Falwell's Liberty University in an attempt to patch his relations with evangelicals.

McCain and [[Ron Paul]] are the only presidential candidates in either party to have served in the military.

== Fundraising ==

McCain has struggled to raise money for his campaign, a sign of weakness for a frontrunner. "Former [[Massachusetts]] Governor [[Mitt Romney]] raised $23 million for his presidential campaign in the first three months of [2007], almost doubling the total of top Republican contender John McCain. McCain, an [[Arizona]] senator, brought in about $12.5 million in the first quarter, his campaign said. 'We had hoped to do better,' said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. Former [[New York]] Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] said he raised $15 million, including more than $10 million in March alone."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZ7SuEo0wuMM&refer=home</ref>

== Votes Missed ==

As of August 2007, McCain had missed more votes during the current session of Congress than any Senator other than [[South Dakota]] [[Democrat]] [[Tim Johnson]], who had suffered a brain hemorrhage that had kept him from Congress. He had missed over 48% of his votes. <ref>Lawrence Journal-World, August 10, 2007</ref> This is due to the fact that he is running for President, and he has to attend political rallies across the country.

==Further reading==
*'''McCain. John''' ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life a prisoner of war in Vietnam'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 Daily Mail]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about '''John McCain''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==

<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

United States of America

2007-03-29T03:06:04Z

Venfayth: /* Vandalism of Conservapedia */

The '''United States of America''' (commonly referred to as the '''United States''', '''US''', or '''US of A''') was founded in on July 4, 1776 with the signing of the [[Declaration of Independence]]. It is currently considered the most powerful nation on earth. [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and other [[Founding Fathers]] formally established the United States by the ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788 A.D. Since the presidency of [[John Quincy Adams]] the United States has been governed by one of two [[political parties]] in a [[republic]] increasingly tending towards [[democracy]] as the [[franchise]] has expanded. The younger of the two existing major parties, the [[Republican Party]], was created in 1854. Between independence in 1776 and ratification of the [[Constitution]] in 1788, the United States' governing documents included the [[Articles of Confederation]] and the [[Declaration of Independence]] itself.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Diests) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution, and therefore prayer in school is unconstitutional. This speration is a continuing source of conflict in American society. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.

==History and geography==

In 1783, when the [[Peace of Paris]] concluded hostilities against [[Great Britain]], the former [[colonial power]], the United States' population totaled some three million [[citizens]] and [[slaves]] living on slightly less than one million square miles of land. An unknown number of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the western part of the United States, which was then bordered on the west by the [[Mississippi River]], on the north by [[Lake Superior]], [[Lake Huron]], [[Lake Erie]] and [[Lake Ontario]], on the east by the [[Atlantic Ocean]], and on the south by [[Florida]], then controlled by [[Spain]]. The land border with [[Canada]] was not clarified until the [[Rush-Bagot Agreement]] of 1816.

The majority of the taxable population lived in the thirteen original [[states]]. In alphabetical order they are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital from 1800 on. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]]. Two additional states were added during the first fifty years by [[secession]] from existing states: [[Vermont]] from New York, and [[Maine]] from Massachusetts. After that, the legality of [[secession]] became an issue.

In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper.

[[Florida]] and [[Texas]] joined the United States as a result of [[revolutions]] by settlers from the United States against their central governments. Florida's was fought in 1810, while the much better remembered [[Texas Revolution]] was fought in 1836. While Spain was willing to cut its losses in Florida and relinquished any claims on the state in the [[Adams-Oniz Agreement]] of 1819, one of the successors to its empire in the Americas, [[Mexico]], was considerably more attached to Texas and fought the [[Mexican War]] between 1846 and 1848 to reverse its annexation by the United States. Losing badly, Mexico was forced to cede the sparsely populated northern portion of itself under the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]]. This territory eventually became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. At approximately the same time, [[President]] [[James K. Polk]] had agreed with the British that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and Canada from [[Lake of the Woods]] (partially in Minnesota) to the [[Pacific Ocean]]. This territory was later organized as the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, [[Secretary of State]] [[William Seward]] purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. Alaska is the westernmost extremity of [[North America]] bounded on the east by Canada, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, on the west by the [[Bering Strait]] and on the north by the [[Arctic Ocean]]. At $7,000,000, Alaska cost the United States considerably less per acre than the [[Mexican Cession]] and slightly less than the Louisiana Territory. Of course, [[inflation]] was less of a factor at this time due to the world [[economy]] still being principally [[agrarian]]. Although at the time it was considered a foolish bargain, Alaska would later become a large source of economic prosperity due to large gold, oil, and other natural resources. Alaska would not be admitted as a state until 1959.

The 50th and so far final state, [[Hawaii]], was admitted in 1960, 67 years after other American settlers deposed the last native [[queen]] of the archipelago and 62 years after annexation had become politically feasible as a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], in which the United States also annexed [[Puerto Rico]], [[Guam]] and [[Wake Island]]. The last three islands are not states, although [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held non-binding [[referenda]] to express its desired status within the United States.

The United States has occasionally relinquished territory. The most significant example of this was certainly the granting of independence in 1946 to the [[Phillipines]] as part of the general [[decolonization]] of [[Asia]] and [[Africa]] following [[World War II]]. Under both [[autocratic]] and [[democratic]] governments, the Phillipines have subsequently remained a strong American ally, and today contribute more troops to the U. S. [[military]] than some states. Other Pacific territories such as the [[Federated States of Micronesia]] and [[Palau]] have also become independent in the postwar era with little objection from opinion leaders on the mainland. More controversial was the 1977 agreement between President [[Jimmy Carter]] and [[General]] [[Omar Torrijos]] to return the [[Panama Canal Zone]], which had been part of the United States since 1914, to [[Panama]] in the year 2000. Ultimately the United States lived up to this agreement despite the worst fears of both [[liberals]] (who decried [[Operation Just Cause]], the 1989 invasion of Panama) and [[conservatives]] (who feared the management of the [[Panama Canal]] by [[Chinese]] interests).

== Vandalism of Conservapedia ==
Conservapedia has been vandalized by a number of American [[citizen|citizens]]. They have locked pages such as [[Evolution]], [[Scopes Trial]], and many others and filled the pages with non-truths and logical fallacies. Odd, they argue for the presentation of both sides of the evolutionary "debate" (a true debate would involve reason) in classrooms, yet only show one side in their "encyclopedia". Hypocracy, or a descent idea gone wrong?

[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2007-03-18T23:04:52Z

Venfayth: /* '''no...''' */

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

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

Yes

Yes. Three major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying American citizens. We had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens. Three, we were experiencing a slump in our economy and needed something to drive the prices back up.
--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Another reason not listed above is that in early 1917, Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, sent a coded telegram to Germany's ambassador to Mexico promised that if Mexico declared war on the United States, Germany would help give back Mexico the territories it lost (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, also known as the Mexico Cession) in the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War.
--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 16:54, 17 March 2007

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

Because the Americans brought the so called 'Spanish flu' with them and that fearful disease managed to kill off nearly 20 million mostly young European citizens far more than were actually killed by the war. Of course it wasn't in any way meant. If the American soldiers had not been crowded together in their vast training camps perhaps the virus would not have developed and the many Americans who died from this pandemic would also have been saved.

United States of America

2007-03-17T17:31:47Z

Venfayth:

{{stub}}
The '''United States of America''' (commonly referred to as The United States) was founded in on July 4, 1776 with the signing of the [[Declaration of Independence]]. [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and other [[Founding Fathers]] formally established the United States by the ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788 A.D. Since the presidency of [[John Quincy Adams]] the United States has been governed by one of two [[political parties]] in a [[republic]] increasingly tending towards [[democracy]] as the [[franchise]] has expanded. The younger of the two existing major parties, the [[Republican Party]], was created in 1854. Between independence in 1776 and ratification of the [[Constitution]] in 1788, the United States' governing documents included the [[Articles of Confederation]] and the [[Declaration of Independence]] itself.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs are notoriously unclear. Conservatives argue that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution, and therefore prayer in school is unconstitutional. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States. At that time, the most significant minorities were probably the [[Mormons]], the [[Roman Catholics]], and the [[Jews]].

==Geography==

In 1783, when the [[Peace of Paris]] concluded hostilities against [[Great Britain]], the former [[colonial power]], the United States' ''Italic text''taxable''Italic text'' population totalled some three million [[citizens]] and [[slaves]] living on slightly less than one million square miles of land. An unknown number of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the western part of the United States, which was then bordered on the west by the [[Mississippi River]], on the north by [[Lake Superior]], [[Lake Huron]], [[Lake Erie]] and [[Lake Ontario]], on the east by the [[Atlantic Ocean]], and on the south by [[Florida]], then controlled by [[Spain]]. The land border with [[Canada]] was not clarified until the [[Rush-Bagot Agreement]] of 1816.

The majority of the taxable population lived in the thirteen original [[states]]. In alphabetical order they are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital from 1800 on. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]]. Two additional states were added during the first fifty years by [[secession]] from existing states: [[Vermont]] from New York, and [[Maine]] from Massachusetts. After that, the legality of [[secession]] became an issue.

In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper.

[[Florida]] and [[Texas]] joined the United States as a result of [[revolutions]] by settlers from the United States against their central governments. Florida's was fought in 1810, while the much better remembered [[Texas Revolution]] was fought in 1836. While Spain was willing to cut its losses in Florida and relinquished any claims on the state in the [[Adams-Oniz Agreement]] of 1819, one of the successors to its empire in the Americas, [[Mexico]], was considerably more attached to Texas and fought the [[Mexican War]] between 1846 and 1848 to reverse its annexation by the United States. Losing badly, Mexico was forced to cede the sparsely populated northern portion of itself under the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]]. This territory eventually became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. At approximately the same time, [[President]] [[James K. Polk]] had agreed with the British that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and Canada from [[Lake of the Woods]] (partially in Minnesota) to the [[Pacific Ocean]]. This territory was later organized as the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, [[Secretary of State]] [[William Seward]] pulled off the only major success of the [[Andrew Johnson]] administration by purchasing [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. Alaska is the westernmost extremity of [[North America]] bounded on the east by Canada, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, on the west by the [[Bering Strait]] and on the north by the [[Arctic Ocean]]. At $7,000,000, Alaska cost the United States considerably less per acre than the [[Mexican Cession]] and slightly less than the Louisiana Territory. Of course, [[inflation]] was less of a factor at this time due to the world [[economy]] still being principally [[agrarian]]. Alaska would not be admitted as a state until 1959.

The 50th and so far final state, [[Hawaii]], was admitted in 1960, 67 years after other American settlers deposed the last [[queen]] of the archipelago and 62 years after annexation had become politically feasible as a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], in which the United States also annexed [[Puerto Rico]], [[Guam]] and [[Wake Island]]. The last three islands are not states, although [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held non-binding [[referenda]] to express its desired status within the United States.

The United States has occasionally relinquished territory. The most significant example of this was certainly the granting of independence in 1946 to the [[Phillipines]] as part of the general [[decolonization]] of [[Asia]] and [[Africa]] following [[World War II]]. Under both [[autocratic]] and [[democratic]] governments, the Phillipines have subsequently remained a strong American ally, and today contribute more troops to the U. S. [[military]] than some states. Other Pacific territories such as the [[Federated States of Micronesia]] and [[Palau]] have also become independent in the postwar era with little objection from opinion leaders on the mainland. More controversial was the 1977 agreement between President [[Jimmy Carter]] and [[General]] [[Omar Torrijos]] to return the [[Panama Canal Zone]], which had been part of the United States since 1914, to [[Panama]] in the year 2000. Ultimately the United States lived up to this agreement despite the worst fears of both [[liberals]] (who decried [[Operation Just Cause]], the 1989 invasion of Panama) and [[conservatives]] (who feared the management of the [[Panama Canal]] by [[Chinese]] interests).

Today, the United States is spreading democracy around the world at a scale that has never been seen in all of history. For this reason, America is the greatest country to have ever existed in the history of everything.

[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:United States History]]

D-Day

2007-03-17T16:28:54Z

Venfayth: Added many facts and fixed errors

D‑Day was June 6, 1944, when Allied forces began their invasion of continental Europe in order to free it from Nazi (German) control. On this day, the Allied forces accomplished the largest amphibious invasion in the history of mankind on the beaches of Normandy, France. The operation used 200,000 men, 9,000 planes, and 5,000 ships.

The landings were originally scheduled for June 5, but bad weather and heavy cloud cover on June 4 forced General Eisenhower to postpone the attack. The next day, the weather had not improved much, but the Allied commanders decided that a delay would be too costly.

Prior to the landings in Normandy, a huge deception campaign was started by the Allies. Radio transmissions were deliberately allowed to be intercepted saying that the landings would be at Calais, not Normandy. Also, on the days before the attack, squadrons of bombers dropped flakes of tin foil on the route to Calais to try to fool the German radar into thinking an Allied fleet was advancing toward Calais. The deception worked, becasue on the day of the actual invasion, much of the German's main army was held back in anticipation of the "real" invasion coming in Calais.

== The Night ==

Starting before dawn, elite paratroopers and soldiers in gliders landed behind enemy lines to take out critical gun emplacements. When the planes were flying to their drop zones, they ran into some cloud cover. Naturally, their formations spread apart because the pilots were afraid they would collide with other planes. As a result, the paratroopers and glider-borne infantry were scattered and, in some cases, miles from their intended drop zones. When they landed, they encountered many problems. The Germans had flooded many low areas, and the paratroopers, weighed down by their chutes and gear, often drowned in just a few feet of water. Those that were lucky enough to survive the landing then had to get their bearings, regroup, and accomplish their objectives. The case of the Merville Battery shows why these men made up the Greatest Generation.

The Merville Battery consisted of four heavy guns in a massive concrete emplacement pointed at Sword beach. It was protected by mine fields and antitank ditches, a 15 foot thick hedge of barbed wire, more mine fields, a maze of machine-gun-filled trenches, and a garrison of 200 men. The plan was to have 100 bombers drop 4,000 pound bombs on the battery. Glider trains were to bring in jeeps, antitank guns, and flamethrowers, Bangalore torpedoes (to cut through the barbed wire), mine detectors, mortars, and ladders. When the ground troops moved in, three gliders filled with men were to crash land on the battery, and if there is no success signal by 5:30, naval bombardment would commence. In reality, Bombing attack failed, and the glider train was lost. Only 150 men of 700 could be found, and that took so much time that they only had one hour to take the battery. They did not have the signal to give to the gliders that were to crash-land on it, so the gliders did not land on the battery. In spite of all this, they still managed to take the battery.

Before the beach invasions began, 9,000 planes and hundreds of warships bombarded the coast. The craters are still visible in many places, including Point du Hoc.

== The Longest Day ==

American soldiers landed at Omaha and Utah beahces, while the British and Canadian forces landed at Sword, Juno, and Gold beaches. The British forces at Juno faced light resistance thanks to bombardment by the Allied Navy. The Americans Utah beach faced the lightest resistance; out of 23,000 soldiers, there were only 197 casualties. However, at Sword, the Canadians faced 11 heavy batteries of 155 mm guns, 9 medium batteries of 75 mm guns, machine-gun nests, pillboxes, other concrete fortifications, and a seawall twice the height of the one at Omaha Beach. The first wave suffered a 50% casualty rate. Omaha beach was the bloodiest landing zone; 2,500 of the 10,000 casualties occured at Omaha. It was defended by 8 concrete bunkers with 75 millimeters or larger guns, 35 pillboxes, 4 batteries of artillery, 18 antitank guns, 6 mortar pits, 35 rocket-launching sites, and more than 85 machine-gun nests.

One of many bizarre historical coincidences, almost none of the German commanders were at the front on the day of the invasion. Rommel was back in Germany to speak with Hitler and for his wife's birthday, June 6. Von Tempelhof, Army Group B’s operations officer, was in Germany. Admiral Theodor Krandke, the naval commander in the west, was in Bordeaux. Major General Heinz Hellmich, Lieutenant General Karl von Schlieben, and Major General Wilhelm Falley were on their way to war games in Rennes. Colonel Wilhelm Meyer-Detring was on leave, and Hitler was at his Berchtesgaden retreat in Bavaria.

German army doctrine also said to hold the Panzers in reserve several miles away from the beaches and allow the Allies to land, then pound them with the Panzers once the troops had landed. Even after the Allies had landed, Hitler held the main Panzer force in reserve because he thought that the landings in Normandy were a diversion and the real invasion would come in Calais and be commanded by General George S. Patton.

The Normandy invasion signalled the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany, and the [[Allies]] would be slowed very little once the main force had landed. Two artificial ports were created that provided a constant supply of reinforcements. The day would be remembered in years to come as the "Longest Day".

[[Image:Bunkers.jpg]]
[[Image:D-day 2.jpg]]

Scopes Trial

2007-03-17T15:40:28Z

Venfayth:

The trial in 1925 of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of Darwinism. The [[ACLU]] and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]] decisively beat them.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students. The Hollywood version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

In the real trial, Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-exam Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.
Judge--All right.
(Applause in audience.)
…
Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion.
....
Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
Bryan --No.
Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?
Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter in audience.)
Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?
Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?
Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause in audience.)

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing at Darrow:

Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?
Bryan--I believe that.
Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?
Bryan--No, sir.
Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?
Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

Darrow ended his cross-examination weaker than when he began -- an enormous defeat for any trial attorney.

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But Darrow stunned the public by giving up rather than upholding his end of the bargain. Darrow took the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes. To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!

The jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested: it found Scopes guilty. His fine was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.

----

Hollywood has little regard for the truth. Its movie version ''Inherit the Wind'' changed everyone's name, thereby preventing libel suits, and changed the facts in order to ridicule religious belief. It featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie portrayed the former Secretary of State Bryan as a complete buffoon. In fact, as shown above, Bryan beat Darrow in the courtroom so convincingly that Darrow surrendered, breaking his own promise to testify. Even the New York Times article the next day reflected surprise at Darrow's abrupt capitulation.

----

Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes was only fined $500 for his actions.

History proved Bryan to be right in opposing eugenics and the textbook used in the Scopes trial. Bryan won the trial and kept Tennessee mostly free from the evolution indoctrination that has plagued the United States and Europe. To this day Tennessee is among the least intrusive states in requiring evolution. In the eyes of a liberal, pro-evolution group, Tennessee and a few similar states "fail so thoroughly to teach evolution as to render their standards totally useless."<ref>http://www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html</ref>

In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional because they are primarily religious in cause.

'''Sources:''' <references/>

Scopes Trial

2007-03-17T04:59:54Z

Venfayth:

The trial in 1925 of John Scopes, for teaching evolution in Tennessee, was a defeat of Darwinism, and Tennessee has remained conservative ever since. The [[ACLU]] and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]] decisively beat them.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students. The Hollywood version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

In the real trial, Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-exam Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.
Judge--All right.
(Applause in audience.)
…
Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion.
....
Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
Bryan --No.
Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?
Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter in audience.)
Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?
Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?
Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause in audience.)

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing at Darrow:

Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?
Bryan--I believe that.
Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?
Bryan--No, sir.
Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?
Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

Darrow ended his cross-examination weaker than when he began -- an enormous defeat for any trial attorney.

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But Darrow stunned the public by giving up rather than upholding his end of the bargain. Darrow took the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes. To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!

The jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested: it found Scopes guilty. His fine was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.

----

Hollywood has little regard for the truth. Its movie version ''Inherit the Wind'' changed everyone's name, thereby preventing libel suits, and changed the facts in order to ridicule religious belief. It featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie portrayed the former Secretary of State Bryan as a complete buffoon. In fact, as shown above, Bryan beat Darrow in the courtroom so convincingly that Darrow surrendered, breaking his own promise to testify. Even the New York Times article the next day reflected surprise at Darrow's abrupt capitulation.

----

Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref>

History proved Bryan to be right in opposing eugenics and the textbook used in the Scopes trial. Bryan won the trial and kept Tennessee mostly free from the evolution indoctrination that has plagued the United States and Europe. To this day Tennessee is among the least intrusive states in requiring evolution. In the eyes of a liberal, pro-evolution group, Tennessee and a few similar states "fail so thoroughly to teach evolution as to render their standards totally useless."<ref>http://www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html</ref>

In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional because they are primarily religious in cause.

'''Sources:''' <references/>

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 2

2007-03-14T21:21:57Z

Venfayth: /* What Evolution is and Is Not */

==Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'?==

Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'? Are those who locked it afraid to debate the points at issue (such as the very title's assumption that evolution is just a theory rather than an observable fact), or are they pretending that there are ''no'' points at issue (almost as if the Bible said so, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject, apart from suggesting some Divine input)? If the first, then they are admitting to the weakness of their position. If the second, then they are frankly misrepresenting the truth. Which, when you think about it, is a bit ironic, to say the least! If knowledge of the truth is supposed to set you free, what is suppression of it supposed to do? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is simply no valid reason for this page to be locked. If one is to present a fair and balanced article on a controversial subject, one cannot close off the avenues leading to knowledge (in its true sense). Censorship is simply unconscionable. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Give me a break! We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship and you ought to be ashamed to write such preposterous claims. And, of course, your absurd comment that we close off "avenues leading to truth". That's what ''Wikipedia'' does. We are opening the avenues of truth, but you don't want to see it. All you want to see is the filthy lies that come out of your mouth. That's not knowledge; that's foolishness. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Methinks describing NousEpyrrhytos's comment as 'filthy lies' reveals (a) abuse, (b) contempt, (c) bigotry and (d) extreme lack of perspective. Still, at least we shall all know in future how seriously to take Scorpionman's contributions. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::What, the same as you take Conservative's contributions? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. Wikipedia also locks many of its pages. We have unlocked pages too when the inappropriate edits decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:34, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Define "inappropriate". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::He just told you! Stop asking dumb questions. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

He did nothing of the kind. Stop ignoring what the texts actually say, whether biblical or otherwise. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. That's a really stupid question. What texts? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(a) No he didn't: if so, quote the above definition. (b) It wasn't a question at all. (c) What NousEpyrrhytos wrote. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the last part is an extreme euphemism. The [[Special:Log/protect|protection log]] shows which pages were ''ever'' unprotected:
:::*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] on March 11 (or 10, in some US time zones), re-protected within seconds.
:::*[[Theistic evolution]] on March 9 (or 8), had been protected while draft had been created.
:::*[[ACLU]] on March 8, re-protected half a day later because you didn't want an unsourced and possibly out-of-context quote to be removed.
:::*[[Earth]] on March 1, with the reasoning that the protection had been unnecessary.
:::*[[Dinosaur]] on March 1, with the same reasoning.
:::*[[Template:AboutC]] on January 19, because the admin didn't mean to protect it.
:::*[[The Theory of Evolution]] on December 18, re-protected since February 24 (or 23) to give [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] control over it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=16283 This diff] (right after re-protection) nicely shows what counts as "inappropriate edits" on Conservaedia.
:::*[[User talk:BenjaminS]] on December 4, by BenjaminS (apparently an error or a test - protection lasted less than one minute)
:::*[[Main Page]] on December 1, November 30 and November 22, re-protected since December 19 to prevent vandalism.
:::*[[How To Create a Conservapedia Account]] on December 1, with the reasoning that protection had been unnecessary.
:::10 cases, including the one which had been unprotected for less than a minute. 4 cases have been re-protected (and still are protected). Out of the 6 still unprotected cases, 5 had been protected unnecessarily. These numbers count the Main Page as one case (one of the 4 protected cases). If you count it as three cases, the Main Page breaks down into: 1 re-protected case, 3 protection/unprotection cycles happened without any vandalism causing them.
:::So I think you might want to rephrase your statement a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hey Squid (oops, Sid), I looked at the diff that you claim shows "inappropriate edits". I'll tell you what was inappropriate: the trash that was rightfully removed. None of the "misconceptions" that were previously listed are valid. Microevolution and macroevolution are ''not'' used to describe two different fields of research, they're quite different in process too. Microevolution doesn't turn chimps into people, and speciation is not macroevolution. The only real misconception about evolution is by evolutionists: that it is a fact. It is a theory, and I'm not confused about that term. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow, coming up with silly names. What is this? Elementary school? After seeing how you basically taunt everybody who argues for more balance and a dose of reality in some articles, I kinda hope that you're just a clever vandal. However, I fear that you really believe that the current excuse for an article about the "Theory of Evolution" is great. The majority editor is a guy whose sole goal is to prove it wrong, no matter what. That's like asking a radical atheist to write an article about God. Yes, Conservapedia is proud to have its bias (even though it never openly admits that on the more prominent pages - for a site that accuses Wikipedia of concealing, distorting, and omitting things, Conservapedia seems awfully eager to hide its own blatant bias and the fact that tons of articles are stubs), so the few pro-balance people are of course fighting a lost battle. This article will probably NEVER be unlocked (the same goes for ACLU, Faith, Second Law of Thermodynamics, YEC, and others), and the "good conservatives" will tell themselves that they finally managed to tell The Truth.
:::But you know what amuses me to no end? This section from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]: "Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored." How fitting, considering that this article here ONLY has "facts" against it and got protected to prevent it from ever being exposed to pro-evolution material. I said it before, I'll say it again: Conservapedia replaces Wikipedia's alleged bias with full, 100% ultra-pro-Christian and radically pro-conservative bias. It has become different than Wikipedia, but not better. And people like you make me doubt that that will ever change. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should it change? Look, the point is that Conservapedia is going to be conservative, not "radical" just conservative, and Wikipedia is going to be liberal. Now if you don't like this then just stick to Wikipedia or EvoWiki (talk about a biased site!) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::this page is ridiculous, it is give no scientific evidence for the creationism theory. please, this is meant to be an unbiased site not a christian rave page
::It's amazing, actually. Anywhere else, you'd just be a sad little troll, but here, you're quite likely on your way to become a good role model. I have better things to do than "discussing" with somebody who I could automate with a Greasemonkey script. Just push the button and insert a generic "Conservapedia is good because it's so biased, but Wikipedia is bad because it's so biased! Because our bias is in line with God and The Truth!" speech into the current textbox. Push another button, and it dishes out a taunt. How does it feel to know that your entire existence could be replaced with a few lines of code without anybody noticing the difference? :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is amazing how many pages are protected against free speech on this website. I just was pressing "Random page" for some times. And many pages were protected. In wikipedia only some pages are protected against IP's. Here EVERY page is protected against IP and many pages are protected even agains logged-in members. I do not get it. What are you afraid so much about here? That people help articles to improve? That people share their knowledge?
::Or is it just that you are afraid that some people might correct some wrong things that you wish to have true? The censorship on this webpage reminds me to the worst dictatorships in the world. Hitler burned books and people, who were against the regime were killed. When Eastern Europe was communistic - people were not allowed to say anything against the leaders or the political system. Especialy Scorpionman reminds me to the communists from the German Democratic Republic. They were building the wall through Berlin to imprison their own people in their state. But they told to the imprisioned that the walls are for keeping out the bad capitalists.
:: Scorpionman tells: "It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. " - Why is the "wall" around the article? To prevent vandalism? Or is the truth - to keep bias? HE also writes: "We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship " - That is how the comunists were arguing. Even when they were starting to build the wall, they said "Nobody wants to build a wall". Sonds quite similar to "We're not censoring anything." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha, what you said is pretty amusing. Serious, but amusing nonetheless. I assume you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book on Christian m? He asserts that we're dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country and kill anyone who holds views contrary to their own. We must stop them!" Sounds like paranoia. That's what liberalism has degraded to: paranoia. You know, ironically, this is exactly what happened in ancient Rome! Christians were viewed as a threat, and consequently were treated horribly. They were burned, thrown to the lions and other horrible things I won't say. I'd say we're coming very close to that in America: "Christians are a threat and we need to remove them." And as for the other stuff, no we're not afraid of your beliefs, heck you can belive anything you want! We're not afraid to debate you either, but frankly it's not really edifying or constructive. It doesn't do anything either, especially these silly internet arguments that culminate in nothing more than name-calling and childish insults. Now unless you have something useful to post, don't bother posting, like I've said before. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since this conservative view of evolution doesn't please you, I don't expect any will but why don't you try reading [http://www.creationwiki.org/Evolution CreationWiki's article on evolution?] Perhaps you may find it at least a little more satisfactory. Cheers. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate to disappoint you and all, but 9 out of 10 people in America actually believe in a supreme being. You have references to God in your pledge of allegiance. Now, please tell me how Christians are percieved as a threat. As for the 'stop with the insults' line, you were the one who used Squid. I mean, thats not even a decent and/or witty insult. It reads like its written by a 16 year old who's voice hasnt broken yet and who gets beaten up at school. And about the paranoia, its always the conservative parties that use fear and paranoia as a tactic to get themselves elected. Examples of this include the use of the percieved threat of communism, terrorism...whats next? atheism? sounds like it from what you're saying...sure, Christians were burnt at the stake...so were a lot of other people. It was a tragedy, but so were the Crusades. If you're not afraid of debating then allow other users to edit this site. ---[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I have no power of the locking or unlocking of this page, so stop complaining to me about it and complain to Conservative or Aschlafly. I don't get beaten up at school, I was homeschooled and my voice ''has'' broken. But that's enough information; it's not safe to give out too many facts about yourself over the internet these days. Christians ''are'' percieved as a threat; you've obviously never heard of Chris Hedges or his book on the Christian Right and how we're ts and trying to take over the country. If you haven't, read it. It's ridiculous, but it will show you that I'm right in what I "claimed". I even found an article on the internet the other day (some obscure site and I forgot the address, it wasn't even worth remembering) that talked about how dangerous Christians and creationists are. Make sure you do the homework before immediately denying what I said. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe scorpionman is for real. He (she?) is a provocateur.

:If there's a provocator here, it's you, Juglander. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: One thing I think scorpionman is forgetting that being conservative and christian are not necessarily the same thing. Also, there are many christians who believe evolution happened (I myself happen to be one). And it helps to be open minded, I have my opinions, but if you can make valid arguements to one point my opinion can change, but attacking my beliefs without backing it up does a greater mis-service to you. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archive ==

This talk page should be archived, as it's getting too long and my browser always takes a long time to open it. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You could even say it's evolved to a more advanced state! [[User:BaggerOfWolves|BaggerOfWolves]] 08:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ha ha, clever! [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Seems to me ==

that this is a very radical site. I think it might be appropriate to notify the FBI and have the terror alert raised... I sense a Christian Jihad.
: Did you allready inform FBI?

:No doubt you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book about Christian m, no? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist Lies, and Hoaxes ==

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover school Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories, and outright lies under oath..."
- ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' 400 F. Supp.2d 707, n.7 at 727.

: dude i saw that too...scary. i don't htink god wants us to lie to force his Word on others. --[[User:Ilovecoulter|Ilovecoulter]] 23:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That quote reminds me of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2013:7-9;&version=46; Job 13:7-9 (CEV)]<blockquote>"''Are you telling lies for God and not telling the whole truth when you argue his case? If he took you to court, could you fool him, just as you fool others?''"<blockquote>

== Bah ==

I have serious problems with this article. It provides a plethora of evidence against evolution, but it does not list any of the pro-evolution facts, of which there is an equal if not greater number. We are striving for the truth, what is best for Christian doctrine, is that correct? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Once again, voicing your own opinion. Like the Proverbs say, a foolish man refuses to listen to instruction, but prefers to err his own opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if anyone did any offending it was the Bible, and the Bible has every right to. Since you claim that the evidence for evolution "is equal to if not greater in number", then give us a few examples! The only ones you'll be able to give is speciation, which is not evidence for macroevolution, and no doubt fossils such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik, each of which are full-one or full the other. Now stop with this nonsense. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In all fairness, evidence for micro evolution is evidence for macroevolution. It shows that it can happen, and theoretically if it were to happen when an entire population was located in one spot, it wouldn't be too far off. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, you're wrong. Evidence for microevolution is ''not'' evidence for macroevolution. Do these little mutations cause the organism to change to a totally different animal? Do random mutations happening all the time cause evolution toward the more complex? No! Mutations are either neutral (which certainly wouldn't advance evolution) or they're harmful. In rare cases are they beneficial, and these rare beneficial ones are hardly anything to talk about. You know I still can't see why you're taking this here instead of your precious "Talk.Origins" website [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: of course evolution isn't random, did you ever pay attention in biology? Evolution happens to give an aid or advantage to a species, and generally it stays the same species but is a little varient. Mutations are sudden major changes in a species, by the way, often due to a major change in typically environment or diet. Mutation is different from evolution. I don't see why you have to be so bitter, you act like evolution proves God doesn't exists.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Evolution proves ''nothing'', on account of the fact that it isn't even proven. I'm referring to macroevolution by the way. Microevolution has been observed and proven, but it doesn't support the Theory of Evolution. You got a wrong definition of mutations; they are any change in the gene code. You should be well aware that the most famous effect of mutations is cancer, which is not beneficial but can cause death. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 23:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So cancer would be a mutation, but not an evolution. We're talking about the specific of evolution. Even if my definition of mutation is wrong, you're arguing something that doesn't actually have to do with evolution. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== What Evolution is and Is Not ==

Evolution is genetic change over time; any evolutionary biologist - the only person qualified to make this judgement - will tell you this. It simply deals with change in genes. There is overwhelming evidence for this, including that DNA replication is not perfect, small changes in an amino acid chain produce profound effects, and not all organisms within a species are exactly the same. Over extended periods of time, these differences add up to large changes within a species.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Before the origin of life, there were no genetic mutations, so it would be wrong to apply evolution to the origin of life. That is a question that must be taken up with chemists and geologists, not evolutionary biologists. It is unfair to point out flaws in evolution's explanations on the origin of life if it makes no attempt to do so.

Evolution also does not explain the origin of the universe. These seems obvious, but people still point out flaws the theory's attempt to explain the origin of the universe, even though it only describes changes in genes over time. Astronomers and physicists describe the origin of the universe, not evolutionary biologists.

Finally, evolution is one of the major unifying themes of biology. Organisms would not exist today if they did not change over time. The earth changes, and organisms change with it.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop digging up dead arguments. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: And these are "dead arguments" exactly how? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just how many times have they been used and not proved a thing? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Hmm? An argument not convincing someone doesn't make it a bad argument. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:The burden of proof is on you, Scorpionman. For over a hundred years, the theory of evolution has been tested to try to prove it wrong. As of yet, nobody has succeeded. What is your scientific proof that genes do not change over time?--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, the burden is on you. You don't have proof that they ''do'' change over time. And the theory of evolution has been disproved, though evolutionists will not admit it. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than your theory and it has never been disproven, so you've got nothing to brag about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Did you honestly just say the Bible has never been disproven? When it comes to scientific matters, the Bible has constantly been disproven. "The sun stood still and the moon stayed — and hasted not to go down about a whole day!" (Joshua 10:12-13) This seems to conflict with the heliocentric theory of our solar system. We now know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that is fairly clear. I noticed that you are a young-earth creationist and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. However, the grand canyon is six million years old, according to all modern geologists. Are you telling me that you know more than scientific proof? Don't give me any crap about a flood forming it; it still takes millions of years to carve that out of the ground. People have spent years objectively studying rock formations around the world, and they have concluded that the earth is billions of years old. You have one poetic book to support your case. I have more than a hundred years of scientific evidence, experiment after experiment, all proving my case. How does creationism explain poodles? Those dogs obviously were not around at the beginning of the world, and in just a few thousand years, they have truly changed from their original form: wolves. You claim that fossil evidence fails to support evolution, but try to find a fossil of a poodle that was alive at the same time as the dinosaurs. Plus, whale fossils have consistently supported the theory of evolution.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 17:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that be so, perhaps you might feel inclined to list some of the undeniable evidence proving that evolution is erroneos in all aspects it claims to explain. Regardless of your own personal feeling on the accuracy of either opinion, codes of conduct for debating scenarios place the burden of proof upon yourself at the present time.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 09:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Self-discrediting of Conservapedia==

Well, at least the obvious tic tendencies of the Christian Right, as demonstrated by Conservapedia's paranoid locking out of anything that does not reflect its articles of faith, should put sensible, adult readers on their guard and warn them not to take anything it says too seriously! Thanks to this, I'm afraid, it is already pretty much self-discrediting - and is rapidly becoming a veritable conspiracy of ignorance into the bargain. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:So you believe that creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force? Like I said before, Nero thought the same thing, and so he put many Christians to death. However, none of his assumptions were correct, Christians were not trying to take over Rome and they're not trying to subdue America either. Obviously you've been reading Chris Hedges new book on Christian m. Where is the evidence behind his claims? Hmmm? Where are our nuclear weapons, weather control devices, bombs, guns and so on? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:And your nonsense about an "ignorance conspiracy" self-discredits you. Maybe Conservapedia does need more content, and perhaps it should show both sides of the issues, but what good do you think you're going to do by making all these absurd claims? If you talked reasonably with Aschlafly (and by reasonably I don't mean going "This whole website is nonsense. None of it is true. You're all a bunch of idiots."), maybe he might change his mind and semi-protect it. So why don't you post your comments on his talkpage. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll briefly point out that Petrus made no claim that "creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force". It isn't very civil or productive to associate with people extremist statements that they did not make. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That is what can be interpreted. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

All i have to say about this argument is thank goodness for evolution. If not for this natural phenomenon we would all be identical in genotype to Noah and his wife (did she have a name?... I mean, she did all the work, right? Cooking up the dinosaurs and dodo birds for food.). If not for evolution we would all be condemned to a long and slow-living existence with life spans far too long to remain interesting.

:I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, this is obvious.

:No it isn't. Nothing is obvious anymore. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== transitional states ==

lots of folks i talk to seem to misnderstand what it means to have a fossil of a "transitional state"; the current (rather short) section on transitional states also reflects this misunderstanding.

i'd suggest modifying or appending the "transitional states" stub to reflect the idea that we DO have fossil evidence of things that can be considered transitional states, depending on your definition, and the problem is that most people tend to have an uninformed definition.

not that this proves evolution or anything, but this section of the current article is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

here's the research: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

== Lack of 'Credible Transitional Forms'? ==

ever heard of Archaeopteryx? or Ambulocetus?

He's got you there, Scorpianman--[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, he doesn't. Achaeopteryx was a bird. Ambulocetus seems to share a lot more in common with crocodiles than either of the others. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) lists all transitional fossils known through 1997 (they gotta update!), which is already quite a long list. The last thing on their list is their references (direct link to it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs), which you can see cites sources such as "Science", "Nature", publications of the Smithsonian, Harvard University Press, various textbooks, other scholarly journals, and conference proceedings...clearly a wide array of support for the existence of MANY credible transitional fossils. Given this, I don't see how one can legitimately claim that there is a lack of credible evidence.

: They can't credibly claim a lack of evidence, but they CAN protect the article, and then fail to answer your replies about how there is evidence.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::'''AUGH!''' (Fixed the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=34928 overly long word]. If possible, avoid adding horizontal scroll bars to pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman, I do not understand why you choose to engage these mindless users, when they cannot respond in any form of intelligent conversation. It is a lose-lose situation when you are dealing with close-minded people such as them. As for a response to such "questions" they raise: We had to prevent vandalism and non-factual material from being posted on this page. There is no supported evidence that supports any of the proposed material. The article is protected; it will remain protected. Period. Deal with it. How's that for a response? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry I didn't see your comment. I just wanted to make it clear to them why the page was protected and that it's not for censorship reasons, but nothing can really be made clear to them. I don't believe I saw Aschlafly's comment asking me to move to a different subject but I'll try to avoid this if I can. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Tell me about it! Where are all your little friends, huh, Scorpionman? None of them here! They're afraid of the truth! Look, evolution is proven, duh! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? C'mon, just look at that list and see! There's no evidence for creation! A bunch of right-wing conspirators get together and start trying to abolish the truth here! It's ridiculous! And they keep on blocking the page so the truth can't be put there! Idiots! Why don't you just give up and conform to the truth? You'll be happier, healthier, and wiser. Come with us and find TRUE knowledge! [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::There is no objective proof of evolution. Just the fitting of facts to the theory. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think I've heard that one before, and I seem to recognize it as an evolutionary argument, but I won't make that assumption yet. And once again, may I please direct you all who are unsatisfied with this article to the [http://www.creationwiki.org/General_theory_of_evolution one at CreationWiki]? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== There's so much more that could be here. ==

Looking over the Evolution page, it seems rather barren. There's quite a bit more information that would be very useful to readers. I've gleaned quite a bit of this from various creationist sources, and they might help add even more information to the page. I would say that all of the following information is at least as academically viable and accurate as the information already present.

You should reference the popular Peppered Moth study, noting that the researchers glued dead moths in place to photograph them. Don't mention that this is a common practice in entymology; instead, present it as though it is some sort of scandal. Most readers won't research the issue further and discover that the practice of gluing dead insects is common when attempting to illustrate graphical features -- especially when comparing two different specimens that don't usually hold still in the wild -- and will instead assume that the photographers were engaged in deliberate deception.
Also, point out that the peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Don't mention, however, that they do rest on the undersides of tree branches, which are essentially the same colour as tree trunks. Also point out that the moths are only active at night, being nocturnal. Most readers won't realise that this means that the moths will be resting -- and thus more vulnerable -- during the day. Instead, try to imply that the moths aren't around at all during the day -- as if they cease to exist -- so that you can imply that colouring is of no consequence because they can't be seen. You can find a lot of these arguments in Ann Coulter's latest book.

You mention Piltdown Man, but you don't mention that it is reported that [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=183 there were over 500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown Man]. I've tried to track down these dissertations, and I can't find a single one. It's quite likely that the claim is false, and that no actual dissertations exist at all, but you don't have to mention that. Just say that it is reported that there were 500 dissertations written and most readers won't bother researching and discovering that the "report" is inaccurate.

I'm somewhat disappointed that the page has no references of the social consequences of accepting the theory of evolution. The creator of Darwin's Deadly Legacy, who has a webpage [http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ here], goes into detail of the social consequences of the theory of evolution. You can easily reference sources claiming that the theory of evolution is responsible for eugenics. Be sure that you don't mention that eugenics was practiced in societies that existed thousands of years before Darwin was born, just reference the instances of eugenics policies [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/hitler.asp endorsed post-Darwin]. Suggest that the theory of evolution implies a moral mandate to kill (or at least sterilize) the "weaker" races. Most people won't realise that such a claim is an appeal to a logical fallacy (appeal to consequence), and hopefully most of your readers won't understand that scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) don't actually dictate action or define morality and that the theory of evolution doesn't actually suggest that Jews, blacks or any other genetic group of homo sapiens is definitively "weaker" than another (because "weaker" is a relative term often dependent upon a myriad of interacting environmental conditions). Just say that Hitler determined that the Jews were weaker and hope that the readers will assume that it's a logical conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution and then imply that Hitler was following the "directives" of evolution. Don't actually use the word "directive"; evolution has no "directives", so you'll have to just let your readers incorrectly infer that it does using vague language. Try suggesting that the theory of evolution does not define acts of genocide as morally wrong. This is factually correct, and many readers won't stop and realize that the same is true of all scientific claims; after all, how many people would stop and realise that the Law of Gravity carries with it no moral compunction not to push people off of buildings? Saying that the theory of evolution suggests that genocide is a good thing would be lying, but saying only that the theory of evolution does not proscribe genocide is technically truthful, and can lead people to believe the same thing.

This can be helped further if you again suggest that the theory of evolution claims that God does not exist. Hopefully your readers won't actually study the theory to learn that such a claim is false. Mention that the theory of evolution does not involve God. Try to word it in such a way to give the impression that the theory actually denies the existence of God (but don't actually say it outright; the claim is false, but the goal is to give the impression that it is true without actually saying it) and that without God, there is no good or evil. Then suggest that if there is no good or evil, that destroying a few people for the betterment of humanity as a whole is a good thing. Hopefully most people won't see that you've directly contradicted yourself. Also, most people won't see that you've essentially admitted that you believe that Jews are in some way inferior to non-Jews (by capitulating that it would better humanity to off if not for killing being morally objectionable). Also, hopefully most people won't see that you've completely gotten off of the subject of the merits of evolution, and that you're trying to disprove an event by saying that you find the (implied) consequences of that event being true as morally repugnant, as if reality depends upon what you find acceptable.

I hope that my suggestions are useful to you. I think that the research that I have referenced is of the same intellectual integrity and honesty as the current evolution page here. With a little work, this page can become a great resource for those looking for the creationist position, a repository on the common creationist objections to the theory of evolution, with all of the research and honesty one would expect from a professional creationist outfit.

I'll do some more digging to find some more claims of equal intellectual merit and accuracy.

[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we should just kill off all the creationists. They keep on opening up their big traps and squelching the truth. Can't we do that, huh, huh? [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I do not believe that your response, which suggests an inappropriate act of violence, has any relevance to my posting. I am curious as to why your only contribution to my suggestion is a non-sequitur. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I would not attempt to understand anything Caveman writes. He is incompetent in a field of intelligent conversation. His response only goes to validate protecting this page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Duh, I even can't remembur mi own pasword! I had to make new one! Whaddya mean I'm untilligent in meningful convursashun! I shure am! I talk good! But I still think that we should kill off all creationists. If I had my club first I'd take out David R, then Aschlafly, then Jimbo Wales, then George Bush, then Emperor Palpatine, then Eragon, then Johnny Cash, then Scorpionman! huh huh! [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I belive David was right about you, CroMagnonMan/Caveman. Come on, half the people you listed aren't known for being creationists! And your threats are of no consequence to anyone here, so stop being immature. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationism popular among the less intelligent==
According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, a source cited on [Examples of Bias in Wikpedia](see entry 22, source 24), those without a high school diploma are more than twice as likely to believe in creationism than their college-graduate counterparts, (65% vs. 25%). Also, those living in or near poverty (Under $20,000) are almost twice as likely (59% vs. 29%) to believe in creationism than their well-off counterparts (Over $50,000). Of course drawing conclusions based on these facts would not be appropriate, that is far too Wikipedia-ish, I do think they have place in the article. They do, after all, come from a website that creators of Conservapedia have used often, proving its credence. --[[User:BushHugger|BushHugger]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::You know what? Shut up. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll bet that the reason is because most of the major universities in the US are liberal, and therefore college grads from these universities of course believe what they are taught there. Now doesn't that make sense? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Your second response, after your initial request for the previous individual to "shut up", appears to be a non-sequitur. What has liberalism, whether present in "most of the major universities in the US", to do with the theory of evolution? [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Scorpionman, when you respond to such users, you are only hurting yourself. I think I told you once to refuse to respond. Aschlafly has already told you to move onto another subject. What is the worst these users can do on a talk page? Also, please refrain from descending to their level of conversation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::David, is there any reason why you remove the word "fascist" from Scorpionman's edits all the time? I've noticed it at least twice within the past few edits. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I just noticed that the same apparently happened a week ago on his Talk page, together with a warning about offensive language. How often will he be "warned" before action is taken? And will his overall behavior here and on other people's talk pages factor into this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:The offensive language he was talking about, Sid, was the word "crap". I can't believe that you think I should be blocked for arguing. I mean, if I should be blocked for arguing then so should you because that's pretty much all you do on this site. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 16:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Venfayth

2007-03-13T02:39:26Z

Venfayth:

The voice of reason.