|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Thanks==
| + | ''See [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]'' |
| − | Thanks for your help on my recent articles !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:12, 25 December 2011 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :My pleasure. I have edited Wikipedia before, so I am used to the MediaWiki syntax (although I'm having to adjust myself to the software differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:14, 25 December 2011 (EST)
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | == Thanks 2 ==
| + | '''Old Earth''' theories propose that the Earth has existed for billions of years. These theories were largely developed by British and European geologists in the 18th and 19th centuries and led to the development of the [[Theory of Evolution]], whose postulated changes could not have possibly occurred in the thousands of years that people had previously estimated the age of the Earth to be. |
| | | | |
| − | Thanks for the correction. Somehow I was on the wrong school's website. [[User:JunoD|JunoD]] 00:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)
| + | A principle basis for Old Earth theory is [[radiometric dating]]. This rests on the assumption that [[radioactive decay]] rates have always been constant, which is disputed by Creation scientists. |
| | | | |
| − | Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:04, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
| + | The discipline of [[uniformitarianism]] is also a basis for assuming an old Earth. Extrapolating the rate of geologic processes backwards in time yields an Earth substantially older than the Biblical 6,000 years. Uniformitarianism is also based on assumptions, however; namely, that many geologic processes were acting at the same or similar rates for the whole history of the Earth. Other theories held by Old Earth proponents include punctuated equilibrium, which suggests gradual change over time with periods of rapid change. |
| | | | |
| − | == reply == | + | == Objections to Old Earth Theory == |
| | | | |
| − | Those articles still need to be deleted tho
| + | Theories of an Old Earth frequently rely on the assumption that physical laws, such as rates of decay, have forever been constant. This assumption is believed to be false by Young Earth Creationists. |
| − | {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | ! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | <font size="2" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="Silver">[[user:Brenden|Brenden]].</font>
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
| + | |
| − | *[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
| + | |
| − | *[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
| + | |
| − | *[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|<font color="blue">log</font>]]
| + | |
| − | |} 17:30, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | == Re: Personal attacks == | + | ==Physical origin of the Earth== |
| | + | Those who accept an old Earth generally believe that natural processes formed the Earth and solar system over a long period of time. This is as opposed to the young-Earth creationist belief in an essentially instantaneous creation. |
| | | | |
| − | I have sometimes made personal attacks out of anger on a few other sites, only to regret it later. I do know that anger is not an excuse for making personal attacks. I will do my best to behave better in the future. :) Thanks. [[User:Marcus2|Marcus2]] 17:36, 17 May 2012 (EDT)
| + | ==See also== |
| | + | *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] |
| | | | |
| − | ==New Main Page==
| + | [[Category:Creationism]] |
| − | | + | [[Category:Evolution]] |
| − | Looks interesting. Where are you going with this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:09, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
| + | [[Category:Geology]] |
| − | | + | |
| − | :I'm hoping to redesign the mainpage so that Conservapedia content is more prominently featured, as opposed to links to external sites (which are useful, but should be given lesser prominence than articles on this site). Additionally, the new divisions should make it less likely that an item is placed in the wrong location (such as in MPR). Also, I am learning CSS along the way, so that's a plus, too. I must admit, though, that I'm not that good of an artist, so the page is open for tweaking (and possibly insertion of images) by those with a more artistic eye. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:13, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Great. Let me know when you need help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:55, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Thanks for the offer. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:58, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Got your message in my talk page message area ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I got your message in my talk page message area. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:15, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == How is the complaint going? ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Any resolution?
| + | |
| − | :Last I heard, Mr. Schlafly was looking at it. I understand he is very busy, though, so I'm not holding my breath. Thanks for asking.
| + | |
| − | :If you have anything you want to add, you can leave it on the complaint's talk page. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Sin ==
| + | |
| − | I had to crack open the book on Catholicism to make sure the venial sins edit was accurate. It seems that you are right and I was wrong. Good catch.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:54, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :No problem. Thanks for confirming that. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Sticking to the point==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Best to leave personal remarks entirely out:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * your position appears to be groundless
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * This doesn't mean that <u>you are a bad editor</u>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Just say where you disagree and why. I've been known to make mistakes before. Why, just last month I made one. :-)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | That was the "personal" part of your comment. Try to avoid this sort of thing in the future. Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :The underlined part of the second comment is being taken completely out of context, as can be seen by the rest of the phrase you quoted. Thanks for your explanation, though. I want to put this behind me so we can get to working on building an encyclopedia. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:17, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :'''EDITED TO ADD''' The first comment is not a personal attack. Saying that one's position is "groundless" does not say anything about the person. As a mathematician, I have made stupid statements from time to time. Identifying positions without basis as such is not a personal attack.
| + | |
| − | :Also, I want to point out that none of the "personal remarks" you mentioned above were in my original response that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=993311&oldid=993310 you removed as personal comments]. The comments you point out above were part of my explanation for why I restored my original comments. Of course, if you have any other comments that you think were personal, feel free to point them out so I know what to avoid in the future. I know that you've pointed out a comment I made to Mr. Schlafly that was, in hindsight, ill-advised, and I retracted it immediately, thanks to your help.
| + | |
| − | :Anyways, let's get back to work on the encyclopedia. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:29, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Sorry if my conception of personal remarks is excessively strict. I might be overreacting, but a lot of other users seem to have declared open season on the established users. Let's keep everything about the project and the articles, and avoid any "you statements". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Good correction ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Good correction to a typo in the [[30-mile rule]] entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:03, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Indo-European==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::::Greg; I do not want [[Indo-European]] redirected. I want it to be a blank slate,. (Tabula rasa.) As said on the talk page, I want it to be used for an article on the history, culture etc. of this group of peoples. What you have done means that every time someone tries to link this term to the Hittites, Iran, the Indus Valley Civilization (I've already had to type "Indo-Aryan" to avoid this) and an unknown number of other subjects, they come automatically to the language. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:38, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Quotes==
| + | |
| − | Thanks for you follow-up on the quotes today. I often forget these important details. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:34, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ==RSS Feed==
| + | |
| − | I also added to the Todd Akin page, the Talk:Todd Akin page and created a new page [[Council for National Policy]] it all disappeared. If you have anything that would help back it up please let me know. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:00, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Tony Sidaways' blog ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Tony Sidaways' blog: http://lambdadelta.wordpress.com/
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | An excerpt from Tony Sidaway's blog: "That in the age of polarized politics a godless homosexualist liberal like me..."[http://lambdadelta.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/confessions-of-an-accidental-conservapedian/]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I hope this partially clears up a misunderstanding. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Thanks for the clarification. It was edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1004968 this] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1002719 this] that I was referring to. And certainly, if a public figure has openly stated a moral fault of theirs (like Dawkins and atheism), I don't see a problem. Thanks for taking into consideration what I had to say. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:26, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::Up until recently, I used to say, "Are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence that atheism is true." One of the reasons for that is that atheism is a stealth religion which has no proof and evidence supporting it. [http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/207581/][http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Atheism_a_Stealth_Religion.pdf] I did this because some atheist gentlemen from a wiki which is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry often post to main page talk before they are shut down by the 90/10 rule. They seem [[Essay: Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|obsessed with Conservapedia]] and myself and engage in endless rumination and speculation about me and other Conservapedians in between proclaiming that the end of Conservapedia is nigh.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::I do think that you make a good point. Thanks for the input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:16, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Please don't revert Sysops comments, throw policy in their faces, or argue ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | It's counterproductive. Take a chill pill and RELAX. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 08:48, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Look, I'm just a new guy.... ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | But I think that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=1008287&oldid=1008285 reverting a post by somebody who's been here since day one] is pretty much frowned upon. It's a big website. Edit the stuff that interests you, ignore the stuff that bothers you. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 18:39, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Thank you for your feedback. I must say that I do take removing others' posts seriously. I will take your advice though about editing other articles (I might get to work proofing the 4th government lecture and finally creating an article on ''Concepcion''). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:00, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::Just can it, already. Work on substantive articles, and leave User:Conservative ''the heck alone''. You're trolling ''conservative'' by removing those comments.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 07:37, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ==Crammo==
| + | |
| − | He somehow edited and locked pages [[User:Wschact]] and [[User:Cmurphynz]]. Can you fix them? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:45, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :I don't have page protect/unprotect privileges, so I can't help you with that. Sorry. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 08:46, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::I seem to be able to edit now. I blanked your user page, as I couldn't seem to find any history [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:49, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == I've nominated you for sysopship ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Just so you know[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:01, 21 November 2012 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :Thank you for your support. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:40, 22 November 2012 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Probability ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I saw your edits to the [[probability]] article. You have left σ-algebra as a redlink. Do you intend to make an article about it? I would suggest that a decent treatment of σ-algebras, and the Kolmogorov axioms, might be a bit beyond the target audience. But if you can explain this, and show how these axioms apply to the study of probability, I'd be interested in seeing it. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:21, 29 November 2012 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :Certainly I don't think such topics are necessary for middle or high school students (the intuitive notion of probability as <math>\frac{\#\textrm{successes}}{\#\textrm{outcomes}}</math> serves well). However, for those that want to study probability or statistics seriously, a rigorous axiomatic foundation is necessary. I recall seeing other articles with more in-depth treatment of certain topics in mathematics on Conservapedia, and I think it would definitely improve the project. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:32, 29 November 2012 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Congratulations ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Congratulations - you understand American Government & Politics very well, and have a bright future!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 30 December 2012 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :Thank you for the compliments. Alas, I am planning to have a career in math instead, but every American citizen should understand how our government works so that they can effectively participate in our republican form of government. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:16, 31 December 2012 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Evolution ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I read your essay on evolution, and I really like it. I've put an "endorsement" of it on my own user page. The sentence "Taking Genesis literally additionally leaves one with the uncomfortable position of having God (who is The Truth) create reason for us only to have us not use it with regards to an important question: our creation." was spot-on.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A thing you might want to say about transitional fossils is along the lines of: scientists see broken trails of evidence all the time, such as, literally, broken particle tracks in a subatomic particle detector, or broken tracks of ancient Roman roads in radar images, or oxbow lakes near a meandering river, and so on. They make perfectly valid inferences that there is a causal or evidential chain from A to C, even if they can't literally see B. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:04, 1 January 2013 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :Thank you for the compliments! Admittedly, I would have to do more science research to finish out the list (my biology knowledge comes from two years of high school courses), but I will consider adding your suggestion to the page. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:09, 2 January 2013 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Obamacare ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I noticed your delete. Please understand the Snopes, Factcheck, and the others like Politifact only masquerade as neutral. They are not the final say nor are they trustworthy. They are liberal funded websites with an agenda. With that said, I reviewed their "false" claims and found them to be inaccurate. Obamacare doesn't use the word exempt, rather opt-out and they use the phrase religious conscience clause. The law as written is vague but enough can be gleaned from it, such tax and insurance mandates. Muslim most certainly "Can" and very likely will take advantage of the loophole and opt-out for religious conscience. We already know that Christians cannot opt-out for religious conscience. My sources
| + | |
| − | say "Presumably, they [Muslims] will be exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance under the religious exemption," and "Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied Christians and Jews." --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:04, 5 January 2013 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :I am not using the sources as "X said Y", therefore "Y". I looked at all three sources and I fully agree with the well-written reasoning in each article. In particular, I will note that an individual can only claim a religious exemption if they also forfeit Social Security benefits, which Muslims have not done (but, incidentally, Amish have). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 10:29, 5 January 2013 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == I intruded on your territory ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Sorry, but I felt that a quarter of a year would mean he would never return. I reduced it to the (still lengthy) 1 week. If you have a problem with that, you can revert me. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:47, 3 February 2013 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Hi, I received your message and answered it in my talk page area.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Email==
| + | |
| − | My address is on my user page, drop me a message if you get a chance some time... I have a couple questions for you that I'd rather not post in public if you don't mind. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:50, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == A note to myself ([[User:Conservative/FYI gentlemen]]) ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | If you missed the posts, you can find them [http://www.webcitation.org/6GQfi632Y HERE], [http://www.webcitation.org/6GQfgxNz7 HERE], and [http://www.webcitation.org/6GQffYI2O HERE]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:40, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == [[User:Conservative]] wants to share some "Bad news for Conservapedia's evolutionists" ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | (content created by Conservative and subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <div style="margin: 10px; padding: 10px; background-color: #CCC">
| + | |
| − | From a [[Question evolution! campaign blog]]:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "Evolutionists and atheists, I know it will be hard to keep down your breakfast tomorrow, so out of Christian charity I have provided some soothing music for you. It is Chinese music. Try not to think about China, the world's largest atheist population, experiencing an explosive growth of Christian creationism in its cities where many of the most influential Chinese live. China's atheist leaders are panicking about this matter.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In December of 2012, the National Intelligence Council issued a report that China will be more influential of a power than Europe (EU area specifically) by 2035. Darwinism can help make countries which were formerly great powers into weak second rate powers, while Christianity and the Protestant work ethic can assist developing countries to overshadow formerly great powers (See also: European Darwinism). And the wonderful thing about Christianity and biblical creation belief is that they are true worldviews." See: [[Christian apologetics]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Please see: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/05/question-evolution-campaign-news-from.html More bad news for evolutionists]
| + | |
| − | </div>
| + | |
| − | [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:17, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == More "Bad news for Conservapedia's evolutionists" from [[User:Conservative]] ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | (content created by [[User:Conservative]] and subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy)
| + | |
| − | <div style="margin: 10px; padding: 10px; background-color: #CCC">
| + | |
| − | [[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A message to Conservapedia's evolutionists re: me/us not reading talk pages or posting to talk pages until [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Public_notice_from_User:_Conservative_account at least 2016]:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Not only am I enjoying my respite from unreasonable and quarrelsome Darwinists (who cannot satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists and are very afraid of debating [[VivaYehshua]]), being more productive overall in various sectors of my life, but I will also have more time to promote various conservative/Christian causes which are important to me.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Also, you needn't worry about me/us breaking this absence from talk pages before 2016 as I/we have informed various parties concerning this matter plus I/we are very committed to this matter.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | By the way, current events certainly do not bode well for Darwinism do they?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Reuters reports: "[[Europe]] is in the midst of its longest recession since it began keeping records in 1995 — even surpassing the calamity that hit the region in the financial crisis of 2008-2009."[http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/15/counterparties-europes-longest-recession/]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Biblical creationism is growing in Europe and its growth rate will accelerate amidst Europe's economic woes.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/social-unrest-in-europe-altering-its.html]
| + | |
| − | {{clear}}
| + | |
| − | </div>
| + | |
| − | [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:49, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :Oh my. Is he ''still'' on about poor VivaYeshua? I thought he'd have given up on that now Viva is banned from Shock's chatroom. An amusing fact about Viva, by the way, is that he isn't even a christian; he's a messianic jew and according to User:Conservative's narrow brand of protestant fundamentalism will be roasting in hell with all us unbelievers.--[[User:MasonFW|MasonFW]] 18:11, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Just plain nuts==
| + | |
| − | The clown I blocked is a repeat troll who engaged in his own brand of harassment in the past. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:49, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Thank you for letting me know. I don't have the CheckUser tool that you and the other sysops have. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:40, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Spam accounts==
| + | |
| − | I've just put 5 users into spam. Could you please check to make sure I haven't went crazy and jumped the gun here, because this feels like a lot.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20 June 2013 19:58 GMT
| + | |
| − | :Looks like you did a good job. There's actually an easy way to stop spammers creating pages, but nobody at Conservapedia seems interested in knowing about it. Just set up Mediawiki so that new accounts have to wait half an hour before creating any pages. Spammers won't hang around that long.--[[User:VeronnicaS|VeronnicaS]] 15:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Deleted ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As a courtesy, I removed your edits that you recently deleted, so they do not appear in the history either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Thanks a million for that! Hope I didn't keep you up too late :). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:38, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Interesting links ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [http://www.webcitation.org/6IEof0MFs], [http://www.webcitation.org/6IEofeeDV], and [http://www.webcitation.org/6IEogRbJv]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:07, 19 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Liberal Myths==
| + | |
| − | Maybe you should discuss on the talk page before wholesale deletions, some of which were posted by Aschlafly.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:27, 22 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Sorry, we apparently posted to each others' talk pages at the same time. I would be happy to discuss why I removed those items in further detail than what I wrote in my edit summary, but I was wondering if my suggested title change to [[Liberal beliefs]] would work; this would seem to moot the issue. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:30, 22 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Or [[Liberal Lies]]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:35, 22 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::I don't think your suggested title is any better; in fact it is far worse. "Lies" implies knowledge that the statement is false as well as an intent to deceive, whereas "myths" is broader and cover false statements that nevertheless have some adherents. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:41, 22 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == A proposal ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | If you want to have a détente as far as us going back and forth on the creation vs. evolution, I am amenable to that.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On the other hand, if you wish to object to my anti-evolution activities, I certainly won't feel remorse pointing out the various evidential failings of evolutionism and the bitter fruit it has produced and continues to produce. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:21, 24 July 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | == Spelling ==
| + | |
| − | Congratulations. But you should have left it for the champ. Now we'll never know. :-)
| + | |
| − | [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:45, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Christians who have interacted with atheists have a common observation that atheists rail about how supposedly stupid and/or crazy they are. Once in a while, I like to tweak their nose about these matters as I find it amusing to do so (spelling bee competition ranking, Word Dynamo test score, a certain gentlemen saying I am quite rational when debating a certain party at this website, the I/we issue and the errant personality profiling, etc.. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:48, 2 August 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Common core ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Just a quick note about my ''modus operandi'' on the [[Essay:Common_Core]] article: Lately I've been trying to keep a strict "hands off" policy about removing any material from a page, even if I think it's completely wrong. There seems to be a policy that one must not remove, or "censor" as it's sometimes called, anything. You can see that policy very clearly by looking through the histories of the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[E%3Dmc²]] articles. But I found that adding information is OK. The best example being a whole new article, [[Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity]]. There has been peace in the relativity department (at least as far as I am concerned; some people still don't "get it") since then.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | When I added the analysis of proof coverage in the Common Core article, I took out Andy's statement that there is no coverage. Then I realized my error, and put it back in when I added the analysis of pre-calculus.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This is not to criticize your actions in any way. Just letting you know where I was coming from. Of course, as a sysop, you can do things that I can't.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:51, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
| + | |
Theories of an Old Earth frequently rely on the assumption that physical laws, such as rates of decay, have forever been constant. This assumption is believed to be false by Young Earth Creationists.
Those who accept an old Earth generally believe that natural processes formed the Earth and solar system over a long period of time. This is as opposed to the young-Earth creationist belief in an essentially instantaneous creation.
