Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Theory of relativity

2007-02-27T05:07:43Z

Whatter: Fixed links

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity Special Relativity] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity General Relativity].

Theory of relativity

2007-02-27T05:02:20Z

Whatter: I give up

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity Special Relativity] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity General Relativity].

Albert Einstein

2007-02-25T22:13:59Z

Whatter: Template for Einstein. Please fill in accordingly. This should make article more relevant and eaiser to read.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

==Famous Works==

==Beliefs==

==Criticisms==

==References==

User:Whatter

2007-02-24T07:04:23Z

Whatter:

A college student pursuing his masters in the science of the small. (Quantum Beetches!) What would you like to know?

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-02-24T06:51:51Z

Whatter: Entry lacks substance. Some suggestions.

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Henry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the anti-American notion that leaders and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in armed conflict for their country.

==Lacking Substance==
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Talk:Moon

2007-02-23T01:28:55Z

Whatter:

==Schlafly's Opinion Again?==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?