2,732
edits
Changes
Conservapedia:AFD Exotheology (view source)
Revision as of 01:43, April 17, 2007
, 01:43, April 17, 2007→Delete
== Delete ==
The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. It lacks any proper sources (the ones given don't support what's claimed on the entry at all!) and many claims are speculative or simply opinion. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with [[UFO]]. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#help_with_your_life_in_outer_space_article] so who knows? [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''Delete'''. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.
::::: Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete.''' This article is trash. '''Exotheology''' probably doesn't deserve an article. '''Exobiology''' certainly deserves a better one. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 17:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete,''' or at least fix it. Very little of the article actually addresses the stated subject, which is a form of speculative philosophy, not a science (or pseudoscience). The sources are also kind of lacking. I found a few hits for exotheology through Google and Google Scholar. There's a fair amount of popular information on exotheology, and journal articles by Hoffman and Haught. It shouldn't be hard to write a good exo-t. article. But I wouldn't want to use this as a starting point.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete,''' article dosnt even define what exotheology is, it allso contains some claims which the citations dont confirm, for example the last one about most scientists doubting existence of life outside earth. Allmost nothing on this article has anything to do with the topic. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== Keep ==
The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.
:::By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Nor did the Bible define the world (''cosmos'') as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the ''inhabited'' world (''oikoumenes'') could stretch to fit.
::::What the Bible has no warrant for is ''extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations.'' If you want more details, see my article on [[extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''STRONG KEEP''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:: Care to elaborate on that? Why? <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>
:The author does not explain the title at all! The subject of exotheology has nothing to do with "the psuedoscience of ET life." It's about how outer space affects theological issues. Break the word down into its roots, exo and theology. Heck, even the articles cited '''explicitly''' state that exotheology is the theology of outer space. '''Not''' belief in ET life. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Keep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Leave it up. It shows newbies to the site a VERY good idea what to expect from the rest of it. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 20:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
omigawd. Please, please, please keep this article. I have already copied it because I suspect it will be deleted. I need the proof because my co-workers will not beleive me. You know, some sites have referred to conservapedia as "stupidpedia," and here is the proof! AK1053287
The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. It lacks any proper sources (the ones given don't support what's claimed on the entry at all!) and many claims are speculative or simply opinion. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with [[UFO]]. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#help_with_your_life_in_outer_space_article] so who knows? [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''Delete'''. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.
::::: Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete.''' This article is trash. '''Exotheology''' probably doesn't deserve an article. '''Exobiology''' certainly deserves a better one. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 17:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete,''' or at least fix it. Very little of the article actually addresses the stated subject, which is a form of speculative philosophy, not a science (or pseudoscience). The sources are also kind of lacking. I found a few hits for exotheology through Google and Google Scholar. There's a fair amount of popular information on exotheology, and journal articles by Hoffman and Haught. It shouldn't be hard to write a good exo-t. article. But I wouldn't want to use this as a starting point.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete,''' article dosnt even define what exotheology is, it allso contains some claims which the citations dont confirm, for example the last one about most scientists doubting existence of life outside earth. Allmost nothing on this article has anything to do with the topic. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
'''Delete'''. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== Keep ==
The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" [[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.
:::By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Nor did the Bible define the world (''cosmos'') as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the ''inhabited'' world (''oikoumenes'') could stretch to fit.
::::What the Bible has no warrant for is ''extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations.'' If you want more details, see my article on [[extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''STRONG KEEP''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:: Care to elaborate on that? Why? <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>
:The author does not explain the title at all! The subject of exotheology has nothing to do with "the psuedoscience of ET life." It's about how outer space affects theological issues. Break the word down into its roots, exo and theology. Heck, even the articles cited '''explicitly''' state that exotheology is the theology of outer space. '''Not''' belief in ET life. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 16:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Keep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Leave it up. It shows newbies to the site a VERY good idea what to expect from the rest of it. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 20:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
omigawd. Please, please, please keep this article. I have already copied it because I suspect it will be deleted. I need the proof because my co-workers will not beleive me. You know, some sites have referred to conservapedia as "stupidpedia," and here is the proof! AK1053287