nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 218:
Line 218: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→New Edit
::Ray 7-2-07
::Ray 7-2-07
==YOUR EDIT WAS NEGATED==
We identified and made the edit of Charles Darwin being an Atheist here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&diff=195878&oldid=195864]
Our source was Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr ''One Long Argument'' 1991:75
Now, one of your own Moderators (a "closet" Darwinist) has changed the article[http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin] to say Darwin was an Agnostic using a liberal web page source run by Atheists and Darwinists who happen to own a clerical collar. But this same Moderator, when he reverted the edit, kept the Mayr source which does not say Darwin was an Agnostic but an Atheist. The liberal web page source is this page:[http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm] It includes Atheists and Wiccans as deciding what Christianity is and is not.
Why has this Moderator changed the article to say Darwin was Agnostic but retains Mayr as a source? Why has he not used his original web page source?[http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm]
You already agreed that the Agnostic label was obviously false and agreed with my reasoning here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Charles_Darwin]
Ray Martinez:
:"I have edited the Religious Views section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. (SNIP irrelevant material)
:When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis."
Andy A. responds:
:"Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments."--Aschlafly 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, '''ten years after ''Origin of Species'' was published.''' "Agnostic" was only invented to give Atheists safe harbor; an attempt to recast themselves hoping their silly opinions and anti-God theories from being dismissed by someone pointing out their Atheism (which in the case of Darwin is most obvious).
Wikipedia says Darwin was an Agnostic. I was under the impression that Conservapedia exists to erase their untruthful bias?
Charles Darwin:
:"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World" ''Descent of Man'' 1871:389 Vol.2
Genesis 2:7
:"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Ray Martinez 7-2-07
: Very interesting Ray. I didn't know that [[agnostic]] is a modern term! Please give me some time to consider all this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, Andy. If you want additional scholars (not web pages) identifying Darwin an Atheist let me know. I can supply three big name scholars.
::RM 7-2-07
:::Can you erase this uncalled for comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&action=history] calling me a "lunatic vandal" for reverting the Agnostic edit back to Atheist? Since you had also made the edit it implies that anyone making the Atheist edit is a "lunatic vandal"?
:::Ray M. 7-2-07