Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,635
edits
Changes
→Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: certianly → certainly, olypmics → olympics, defintion → definition, understnad → understand, wikipedia's → Wikipedia's (3), better then → better than (2), to to → to
=== '''Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?''' ===
=== '''Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?''' ===
Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law. It can also appear in articles in science (evolution, for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).
Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law. It can also appear in articles in science ([[evolution]], for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).
But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses. For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject. Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles. Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.
But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses. For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject. Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles. Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''
Why do you have to make the Bible again? It's already been translated so many times. Why doesn't everybody learn to read Greek? Did Jesus even think of people as libreal and conservative? [[User:KhaderA|KhaderA]] 20:41, 14 December 2009 (EST)
== Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful ==
== Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful ==
Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''
Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''
If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, wikipedia's. Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO<sub>3</sub>.
If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, Wikipedia's. Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by Wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO<sub>3</sub>.
In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by wikipedia....
In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by Wikipedia....
[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)
[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.
I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.
The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better then a dictionary.
The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better than a dictionary.
The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certianly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understnad only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certainly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understand only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?
For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?
Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the defintion of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the definition of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.
It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.
:::::::::::Frank, the more you talk, talk, talk in a silly way, the more you illustrate my point about your Wikipedia being a waste of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::Frank, the more you talk, talk, talk in a silly way, the more you illustrate my point about your Wikipedia being a waste of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:29, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::'''"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits."''' Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites. Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::::I think your Google tubes got snagged on something during its search. I just tested this (Googled: "thank you conservapedia") and received 37,800 results. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:22, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::::Doh. Nevermind. I just put the quotes around it... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:24, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)
This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.
It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better then I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.
It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better than I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.
I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)
I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::It has not been my intention to defend the bias of Wikipedia, but merely to point out that your website is much more biased, and therefore less useful to someone seeking impartial information. It is you who have not defended your own bias, or perhaps you are alright with your encyclopedia being highly biased? Certainly that allows you to control the information such that it conforms to your own world view. On the subject of the information in the Wikipedia article on abortion, why haven't you tried to correct it if you feel so strongly about it? I am not an expert in that field and therefore I feel it would be wrong to make such a correction myself. Maybe you have tried to change it already and it has been changed back. That would indicate to me that more people on average feel it shouldn't be there. Perhaps you should persuade more people to change it so that the weight of numbers is on your side? Or perhaps gather some experts to advocate the change? If you are choosing to attack my work on this site then I'm disappointed in you. I don't think my liberal or scientific views would be appreciated here. The one change I did make was to point out a very strong piece of evidence for General Relativity in an article devoid of such evidence. That such an important piece of information was unconstructively removed echoes my concern that your articles are often highly biased. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 21:08, 13 December 2009 (MST)
:::::::::::It has not been my intention to defend the bias of Wikipedia, but merely to point out that your website is much more biased, and therefore less useful to someone seeking impartial information. It is you who have not defended your own bias, or perhaps you are alright with your encyclopedia being highly biased? Certainly that allows you to control the information such that it conforms to your own world view. On the subject of the information in the Wikipedia article on abortion, why haven't you tried to correct it if you feel so strongly about it? I am not an expert in that field and therefore I feel it would be wrong to make such a correction myself. Maybe you have tried to change it already and it has been changed back. That would indicate to me that more people on average feel it shouldn't be there. Perhaps you should persuade more people to change it so that the weight of numbers is on your side? Or perhaps gather some experts to advocate the change? If you are choosing to attack my work on this site then I'm disappointed in you. I don't think my liberal or scientific views would be appreciated here. The one change I did make was to point out a very strong piece of evidence for General Relativity in an article devoid of such evidence. That such an important piece of information was unconstructively removed echoes my concern that your articles are often highly biased. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 21:08, 13 December 2009 (MST)
::::::::::::Nick, the bottom line is that you seem fine with consensus defining "truth", and your edits here reflect that. Nearly all talk, plus one edit that reflected Wikipedia-style consensus rather than the truth (the Mercury perihelion data no longer confirm relativity predictions within the standard of error). You're unaware of the flaw in your sole substantive because you rely on consensus to guide you, rather than relying on principled authority. I urge you to reconsider, but you have free will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia. You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like. It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn. I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did. I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia. You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like. It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn. I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did. I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olypmics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olympics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:Ah, so you're just here to argue then. Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:Ah, so you're just here to argue then. Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded. Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded. What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded. Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded. What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)
All of it! You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question. You can question it and decide that it was correct after all. The openness is in the ability to to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you. Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence. Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it! My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it. That's closed. Asking if that may be true or not is open. Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)
All of it! You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question. You can question it and decide that it was correct after all. The openness is in the ability to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you. Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence. Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it! My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it. That's closed. Asking if that may be true or not is open. Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)
To follow up the discussion on open minds and turning from something you were taught I would like to submit a small piece of my life. From birth I was taught strict conservative Christian ideals in a traditional southern home. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I started to question the reality that I knew and began researching many avenues to find the "truth." Now, ten years later, I find truth to be relative to perception. Personally, I find that logic leads to a scientific view of the world. I feel that all knowledge should only be provisional and subject to modification based on better evidence. So, am I open minded for turning from something I was indoctrinated with as a child?
To follow up the discussion on open minds and turning from something you were taught I would like to submit a small piece of my life. From birth I was taught strict conservative Christian ideals in a traditional southern home. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I started to question the reality that I knew and began researching many avenues to find the "truth." Now, ten years later, I find truth to be relative to perception. Personally, I find that logic leads to a scientific view of the world. I feel that all knowledge should only be provisional and subject to modification based on better evidence. So, am I open minded for turning from something I was indoctrinated with as a child?[[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:28, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Do you give equal time now to the Bible, the most logical book ever written? I bet that what really happened is that liberals succeeded in pulling you away from the Bible, to the point where you spend less than 5% of your time on it now. It's a censorship that is often repeated, with tragic results. Those who wake up and start giving the Bible equal time again never regret it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::I will admit that no I do not spend equal time on the bible now. The Bible being the most logical book ever written is certainly a moot statement. If I were to only use one reference point as the base for my perception of the world then I would miss the valuable insight that other points of view offer, weather they be flawed or not. You don't have to agree with something in it's entirety to glean some fundamental knowledge. I find the bible to have sets of ethics and values that transcend dogma. At the same time, I don't believe science and its practices to be all knowing just a method by which to draw provisional conclusions. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 11:11, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::Dave, you have free will. The Bible is like a good diet. One can choose to ''never'' eat foods that are good for you, but the outcome is not pretty or desirable. Put another way, you're not helping anyone by refusing to read the Bible, least of all yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::::A diet, like an open mind, should be well balanced. Too much of any one thing is a bad thing. -- I've never "refused to read the bible." As I stated previously I was raised Christian. I have read and studied the Bible.[[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Dave, I'm confident that your statement above is artfully misleading, like saying you have eaten lots of vegetables but omitting that you haven't eaten any in the last 20 years. Diet is a daily matter, and so is reading. The issue is what you do now, not what you did in the distant past.
:::::Someone who is in denial about he censors the Bible from his own life is going to be in denial about many other important points also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:08, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Continuing with the diet metaphor, if you eat only vegetables on a daily basis you will find yourself surviving but malnourished. I do respect the idea that the Bible is the sustenance for ideas and ideals of the Christian community. -- I certainly do not censor the Bible from my life. I think about it frequently and occasionally read from it, just not in the way that you might want me to. Please, provide some examples of other points that I may be in denial about. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 11:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Dave, the issue is ''excluding'' vegetables or the Bible virtually ''entirely'' from the daily diet. You say you "do not censor the Bible from" your life, but I'm confident you do not give Bible reading equal time or even 5% of your time. If that's not censorship, then what is? Liberals would be jumping up and down and if they were ever censored by limiting them to less than 5% of one's daily diet of information.
::::::What else are you in denial about? I bet you're in denial about the very real existence of Hell. Many of us, even those who allow Bible reading to be more than 5% of our time, fall into denial about that. Yet Jesus talked about Hell more than he talked about Heaven, a fraction greater than 50%--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I don't devote a specific amount of time to any book everyday unless it is part of my studies. Even then the time would come when I have extracted all the practical knowledge and it would be time to move on to a new subject. If I kept reading the same book for the last 26 years I would still be reading "Good Night Moon" and other children's books. -- To censor something, such as the Bible, would be to actively block it from others or myself. I don't intentionally block or exclude the bible so it's not censorship. My daily actions do not fall under any traditional definition of the word censor or censorship. -- A persons choice of daily information is theirs alone, a liberal would never know if someone chose to limit them to 5%.
::::::I do not deny the existence of hell, nor do I confirm it. The existence of hell cannot be tested, cannot be proven and cannot be known. Therefore, It cannot be denied. -- Fear is a powerful tool. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 15:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)
It is very sad how these people refuse to let themselves be enlightened by reading the Bible. I'm not sure where this hatred and animosity for a book that has been nothing but beneficial to the world comes from. I only hope it is a passing phase. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 10:36, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:Some would argue the point that the Bible has "been nothing but beneficial to the world." Throughout history it has been used as a means to justify atrocious action. Some examples are Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre or the notoriously bloody Crusades. I realize these events are the actions of individuals who distort the Bibles meaning and intent but they do serve as examples of how the Bible has been used in a negative way.
I've got to say, this is literally my favorite website in the world! This like the only bible-thumping online-community/denial generator that actually backs up what they say with the truth, and not the liberal "truth", that's shoved down our throats from birth, but true, conservative half-truths. The only truth you need.
:Wow, what brilliant sarcasm! You might break the record for the highest score yet on our [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closedmindedness test]]. Please give it a try.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:31, 14 December 2009 (EST)
"Do you believe evolution ''must'' have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.
--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)== The most logical book ever written ==
My candidate would something like Euclid's ''Elements'' - but certainly not the Bible as
#the Bible includes ''miracles'', i.e., happenings which are remarkable as they defy logic and
#an almighty God certainly is not bound by our understanding of logic
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Maybe you should read our essay, [[Essay:Quantifying Order]]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:45, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::The words ''logic'' or ''logical'' don't appear even once in that essay, it seems to be about ''order''.... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:00, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::The essay points out how there is nothing illogical about miracles, and you haven't provided anything illogical about them. Miracles reflect greater order in a world plagued by disorder. "Signs" is the better translation of the term for miracles ... signs of the greater underlying order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::::''And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.'' What's logical about this? It's a surprising event, a miracle or a sign, at least something out-of-order happening... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:35, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Logic can be surprising, as in the Monty Hall three-door paradox or the [[Coase Theorem]]. But there's nothing illogical about God projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created. I think you mean to say it is "out of the ordinary." It is NOT illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:::::: Well put, Andy. From my experience it seems like many people only read brief passages from the Bible and don't fully understand them, which is why they may think it's "illogical." But a careful study of the full meaning of the scriptures leads one to realize that it is indeed the most logical book ever written. To all those trying to argue against the Bible here - I urge you to spend a bit more time meticulously studying its contents, and perhaps you will be enlightened. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::::::: ''Projecting His voice from a bush that He originally created'' sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan''. It doesn't become more logical by just repeating the statement! Conservapedia's article on [[Logic]] states:
:::::::''Logic is also used extensively in theology, and especially the study of the Bible, which, due to its divine inspiration, is very logical. ''
:::::::IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
::::::: [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::@FrankC: Here you are pretending to have knowledge of logic while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no idea what logic is whatsoever. How can I make such a bold claim? Here's why: "sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan." ''There are three classical Laws of Logic; the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of the Excluded Middle. None of those laws are violated if I were to jump up in the air right now and fly around like Superman. That would be violating natural laws but not logic. Likewise, none of the Laws of Logic were ever broken by God. Here's a hint why:
:::::::"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
:::::::The greek term for "word" is Logos which means Logic. I hope you actually take a class on critical reasoning soon. We can't have pseudo-intellectuals like you clogging up the "tubes" of the internet.--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)
::::::: It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::DaveGBx, you seemed to want a debate page devoted to this topic so I provided this resource: [[Debate: Is the Bible logical?]] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:24, 16 December 2009 (EST)
::::I've also written an [[Essay: Logic and The Bible|essay]] on this topic, and I welcome any discussion on the talk page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:59, 16 December 2009 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia]]