A conservative's answer to Wikipedia
Seeing a liberal bias on the popular online encyclopedia, a teacher launches Conservapedia -- to give a different angle on the facts, he says.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
June 19, 2007


Andy Schlafly was appalled. He was teaching a history class to home-schooled teens and one student had just turned in an assignment that dated events as "BCE," before the common era — rather than "BC," before Christ.

"Where did that come from?" he demanded.

Her answer: "Wikipedia."

At that, Schlafly knew he had to act. In his mind, the popular online encyclopedia — written and edited by self-appointed experts worldwide — was riddled with liberal bias. Dating events without referring to the New Testament was just one example. How about Wikipedia's entry on golfer Zach Johnson, winner of the 2007 Masters? Not a single word about how Johnson gave credit for his win to Jesus Christ.

Thus was born Conservapedia.com — labeled "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust."

Schlafly, 46, started small, urging his students to post brief — often one-sentence — entries on ancient history. He went live with the site in November. In the last six months, it's grown explosively, offering what Schlafly describes as fair, scholarly articles. Many have a distinctly religious-right perspective.

Take the Pleistocene Epoch. Most scientists know it as the ice age and date it back at least 1.6 million years. But Conservapedia calls it "a theorized period of time" — a theory contradicted, according to the entry, by "multiple lines of evidence" indicating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, as described in the Book of Genesis.

"We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts."

Conservapedia defines environmentalists as "people who profess concern about the environment" and notes that some would want to impose legal limits on the use of toilet paper.

Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."

A hike in minimum wage is referred to as "a controversial manoeuvre that increases the incentive for young people to drop out of school."

And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."

With fewer than 12,000 entries and typos galore (the misspelling of Mobil above; the mayor of L.A. is referred to as "Anthony Varigoso"), Conservapedia isn't about to supplant Wikipedia — which boasts 1.8 million articles in English alone.

But the all-volunteer site has several thousand active readers and writers. Schlafly encourages his students to use it as a reference, saying that the articles are more concise than those on Wikipedia. On the home page, just above the daily Bible verse, he tallies total views: 12.3 million and counting.

Conservapedia's critics for the most part have no problem with the articles heaping praise on former President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Britain. But they worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion. They're also concerned that children who stumble onto the site will assume everything in it is authoritative.

Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting — or even mainstream — views.

"The project specifically targets high-schoolers, and that's probably what I find most dangerous," said Andreas Kjeldsen, 27, a Danish graduate student who wrote several entries on medieval history before stopping in protest.

Many, perhaps most, of Conservapedia's articles are free of ideology. There are brisk, straightforward entries about hundreds of topics: the tuba, Claude Monet, the nation of Latvia, Robin Hood, polygons, the Renaissance.

But consider the entry on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (b. 1947). She "may suffer from a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" — namely, "clinical narcissism," Conservapedia asserts. Evidence of her instability includes her "ever-changing opinion of the Iraq war." Though Schlafly demands that entries be rigorously footnoted, these sentences are not.

Schlafly calls the armchair psychology "borderline in acceptability" for his site, but he defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective."

Page 2 of 2 << back 1 2


The whole point of his encyclopedia, he said, is to provide a different angle on the facts — ones that a student researcher wouldn't necessarily find on Wikipedia, or in the school library.

Schlafly, the son of Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly, is a Harvard-educated attorney who practices in Chester, N.J. He does not know most of Conservapedia's contributors; they're spread out across the world and communicate through online pseudonyms. He promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain articles from changes.

Even among this elite group, there's no ideological conformity. Terry Koeckritz doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on topics such as Fox News.

"It is what it is," said Koeckritz, 56, a computer consultant in Reno. "A family-friendly, Christian-friendly encyclopedia."

That makes it an interesting window into a foreign world for college student Tasha D. Jones, 24, who says she loves to browse random pages and see how writers have inserted Biblical quotes or framed historical events in religious terms.

"It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives," said Jones, who attends Sacramento City College and has contributed articles on lemons, mangoes and other nonpartisan topics.

The articles change constantly, as most are open to editing by anyone online; on a recent day, a few showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution. (It was the last line in the entry, after a lengthy discussion about which marsupials Noah may have brought aboard his ark.)

In other cases, a glance at the entry's history — which shows editing over time — makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate.

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And — by their own admission — engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: "Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants."

The vandalism aims "to cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko,' " said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.

Such aggression has reinforced the view among some Conservapedia writers that left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech.

"I had heard it spoken of, but it had never really hit home before just how hostile they are," said a 15-year-old in New Jersey whose mother asked that her name not be used.

The girl, who is home-schooled, wrote an article for Conservapedia on Irish dancing and uses the site to research papers. But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schlafly19jun19,0,1038574.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center

If you don't like what the experts in the field state regarding history and or science just make up your encyclopedia and pretend. This encyclopedia basically, says that the most well supported theory is the biblical theory of creation, not to mention that an article from this so called source states that Hillary Clinton has mental problems. How much do you want to make a bet that not a single encyclopedia anywhere in the world would run with such ridiculous, made up, opionated rightwing smear. The evidence for Hillary's mental illness is that she flip flops and changes positions in regards to the Iraq. Based on this evidence the crackpot conservative concluded that Hillary has mental problems that should disqualify her from being president. Could you imagine any credible Encyclopedia infusing ideology like these people. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY CONSERVATIVE JUNK ACADEMICS, THEY JUST MAKE **** UP AND THE STUPID WHO MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THEIR FOLLOWERS SIMPLY BELIEVE IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN, BUT IF SOMEBODY CAN EDIT MY TITLE I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. ANY OF YOU MODERATORS OUT THERE

I like you title just fine. It's factual, accurate and to the point. Even the conservatives can't argue against your points. And I notice none have.

Iceman, I don't think conservatives have an argument anymore. You can not have a factual discussion with people who make up their own facts as they go along. Condi Rice said in 2005 that we had 225,000 Iraqi troops; when in actuality we had but a few thousand. Conservatives still have the audacity to claim that the Bush Administration hasn't lied about Iraq. This is only one of a thousand situations from domestic to foreign policy. They don't like the facts they start their own Encyclopedia and create their own. They don't like history they will ignore it and just write their own. They don't like scientific theories they will ignore it and write their own. CAN ANYONE SEE A PATTERN DEVELOPING HERE? AGAIN YOU CAN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE WHO ROUTINELY MAKE UP FACTS.

Yes!!! But POL you must realize FANTASY works. Disney Corp has made billions with fantasy.

Another of the Bush fantasys is "The No Child Left Behind". Heres a part of a Dobbs article posted just today:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- America's once-proud public school system -- the great equalizer of our democratic society -- is failing an entire generation of students. Millions of high-school students are donning their caps and gowns this month, but a new Education Week report reveals that more than 1.2 million students will fail to graduate high school this year. Half of our black and Hispanic male students are dropping out of public high schools.

Nowhere is the news for our young people worse than in Detroit, Michigan. Detroit's economy has been devastated by so-called free trade policies and awful management decisions. Tens of thousands of jobs are disappearing, and too many mothers and fathers have never attended a parent-teacher conference. Detroit's community is in pain, and the city's future is uncertain. And despite the best efforts of local and state leaders, hope is in short supply.

The Education Week report shows Detroit's public high schools will graduate only 25 percent of their students. Cleveland, Ohio, and Baltimore, Maryland, will graduate less than 35 percent; Dallas, Texas, New York and Los Angeles, California, about 45 percent. In fact, 10 of our nation's biggest cities will graduate fewer than half their students. This is nothing less than a national crisis.

Christopher Swanson, director of the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center and supervisor of that national dropout rate report says: "I think that really speaks to the challenge of getting students to graduate from high school at a time where it's more important than it's ever been...to provide opportunities for our young people to have a successful career and for the United States in general to be competitive in the world."


So I ask you: Other than lies and the ruination of America, what has the Repukes accomplished?

I think the Republican want to destroy public education they pretty much attack it on a daily basis and have instigated policies to purposelly dumb down America. How else can they brain wash Americans into supporting a corporatist policy that is actually against the interest of the voters. Without a population of ignorant people, they can't as easily manipulate them, therefore control public education, which is the most effective way of controlling the message.

Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.

There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.

This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it's finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.

There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.

Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve children, because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.

Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare? How many people on welfare vote Republican?

I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don't protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom

Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt's mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off. Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it's lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer. Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt's mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn't have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Security Security, which in reality is just a bond fund.

Trickle down economics does not work- Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.



These pieces were all taken from this website:
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Toptenlies.htm

POL,

There is a difference between being wrong and being stupid. I think you are wrong on many of your opinions, buy I don't think you are stupid. However, calling your opposition (at least half the population of America or so mind you.) stupid, demonstrates a degree of ignorance on your part.

Sorry, Zorgunfluech writing an encyclopedia that states Hillary Clinton has "mental problems" based on her flip flopping on the Iraq war is not objective. It is not fair, and it is ignorant. Nobody is entitled to make up their own facts. Unfortunately, that is what the right in this country are doing. I don't believe in a liberal media bias at all. Look at how the media came down on Clinton and how they have basically given a free pass to this ex-coke sniffer we don't hear anything about Bush's past escapades like we did on Clinton. Furthermore, this guy blatantly lied us into a war. EVERYONE LIES, BUT THE FAR RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY IS TAKING IT TO THE POINT WHERE THEY ARE MAKING UP THEIR OWN HISTORY, THEIR OWN SCIENCE, THEIR OWN REALITY COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM WHAT THE ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE STATES. ZORG. I DON'T THINK YOU ARE STUPID, BUT DAMN WELL I DO THING YOU ARE MISTAKEN AND THAT YOU ARE IN VIRTUAL DENIAL OF ANY FACT THAT DISPUTES YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS. THIS DOESN'T MAKE YOU STUPID, BUT IT DOES MEAN YOU ARE DELUDED. AND I AM SORRY EVERYONE LIES, BUT THIS CURRENT CROP OF IDEOLOGUES RUNNING THE FAR RIGHT IS BEYOND SPIN AND BIAS, THEY ARE BOLD FACED LIARS. SORRY, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A WELL SUPPORTED SCIENCE THEORY, EVOLUTION IS THE MOST WELL SUPPORTED THEORY. AND SIMPLY WRITTING YOUR OWN ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT CLAIMS THE OPPOSITE IS FRAUD, PERIOD. IT IS MALICIOUS AND IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN, WHAT LEGITIMATE ENCYCLOPEDIA WRITTEN FOR CONSUMPTION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN WOULD CLAIM THAT HILLARY HAS "MENTAL PROBLEMS" WHEN DISCUSSING THE POLITICAL DECISIONS OF US SENATOR. LIKE THIS AWHOLE WRITING THE ARGUMENT IS NOW AN EXPERT AT ANALYZING HILLARY'S PSYCHOLOGY, AND THE EVIDENCE THEY USE IS THAT SHE FLIP-FLOPS ON THE IRAQ WAR. WHAT A FCUKING JOKE, SO BEING AGAINST THE WAR MAKES YOU MENTALLY ILL ACCORDING TO CONSERVAPEDIA.

PLEASE FOCUS YOUR ARGUMENTS, I CAN'T DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL OF THESE VARIOUS UNRELATED TOPICS. SORRY BUDDY, YOUR IDEOLOGY OF CONSERVATISM IS BEING DISCREDITTED EVERY DAY BY THIS CABAL OF LIARS. THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT RED HANDED IN A MASSIVE CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION, AND THE SUPPOSEDLY LIBERAL MEDIA IS STILL BASICALLY BROADCASTING THEIR NONSENSICAL MADE UP EXAGGERATIONS ABOUT IRAN AS WELL. SO MUCH FOR A LIBERAL BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE CRUCIFIED BILL CLINTON IF CLINTON DID ONE MILLIONTH OF THE **** BUSH HAS DONE AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH.

AGAIN, YOU WANT A DISCUSSION OF TEN VARIOUS DIFFERENT ANCILLIARY ISSUES START YOUR OWN THREAD, PLEASE TRY TO FOCUS YOUR DISCUSSION HERE SPECIFICALLY TO THE VALIDITY OF MY ARTICLE, CONSERVAPEDIA, AND ISSUES THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED. I'D LOVE TO DISCUSS ALL YOUR OTHER POINTS, JUST START UP THREADS THAT HAVE A MORE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP. I WANT TO HASH OUT THESE ISSUES AND NOT CONFUSE THE DEBATE, BUT I WOULD HAPPILY RESPOND SEPERATELY TO ALL OF THE OTHER INSTANCES YOU HAVE PROVIDED.

I don't want a response to everything I posted, it was merely for some perspective. You seem to think that anyone who believes, or thinks differently than you is stupid. You also seem to think that popular opinion equals truth, at least when it agree's with you.

The media has never been to concerned with the fact that if it wasn't for Bill Clinton, N. Korea would not be a nuclear issue right now. Or the fact that he sold our military technology to the Chinese. There is no way Bush could get away with from the amount of sexual harassment charges that were brought against Clinton.

Please don't get me wrong here, I think that Bush is a retarded (no disrespect to the mentally handicapped), elitist, socialist, trator; and I think he should be impeached. As well, I think Clinton is a narcissistic, womanizing, elitist, communist.

The media has never been to concerned with the fact that if it wasn't for Bill Clinton, N. Korea would not be a nuclear issue right now. Or the fact that he sold our military technology to the Chinese. There is no way Bush could get away with from the amount of sexual harassment charges that were brought against Clinton.)Zorg

WRONG, ACTUALLY NORTH KOREA WENT NUCLEAR 5 YEARS INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT DID GEORGE BUSH DO EXCEPT IGNORE THEM FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME. HE DID NOTHING. WHEN CLINTON WAS AROUND WE HAD A DEAL THAT WHILE IT WAS PROBLEMATIC PREVENTED NK FROM TESTING NUKES. YOU CAN NOT BLAME CLINTON, TELL ME WHAT DID BUSH DO FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF HIS PRESIDENCY FROM HIS INAGUARATION TILL NK WENT NUCLEAR, OH HE DIDN'T TALK TO THEM, THAT REALLY SHOWED THEM. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT BUSH CAVED TO NK AFTER THEY WENT NUCLEAR, CLINTON TRIED TO BUY THEM OFF BEFORE. NOW BUSH IS STILL PAYING THE NORTH KOREANS BUT HIS INDIFFERENCE AND NEGLIGENCE FOR 5 YEARS ASSURED THAT NK WOULD HAVE ITS CAKE (ECONOMIC PAYOFFS) AND EAT IT TOO(TEST A NUKE AS THEY DID UNDER BUSH'S PRESIDENCY AND NOT CLINTON'S). IN FACT, NEITHER ONE OF THE TWO PRESIDENTS REALLY DESERVES MUCH RESPONSIBILITY, WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE SHORT OF AN ALL OUT WAR TO PREVENT IT, IF THEY WANTED THE NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I don't want a response to everything I posted, it was merely for some perspective. You seem to think that anyone who believes, or thinks differently than you is stupid. You also seem to think that popular opinion equals truth, at least when it agree's with you.)Zorg

MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE USED THE WORD "BRAINWASHED" OR "DELUDED" AS OPPOSED TO STUPID. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT THERE ISN'T MUCH OF A DISTINCTION. I AM SORRY YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HOLD YOUR OWN OPINIONS YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MANUFACTURE YOUR OWN FACTS. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH CONSERVAPEDIA, THEY ARE SIMPLY MANUFACTURING THEIR OWN FACTS.

AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS CRAP ABOUT WHO IS BETTER BUSH OR CLINTON, I DON'T EVEN THINK IT IS A CONTEST AND THAT ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HAD ON A DIFFERENT THREAD. THIS IS ABOUT THE PHENOMENOM OF CONSERVATIVE JUNK SCIENCE AND EXPERTS AND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN USED TO DELUDE AMERICA INTO VOTING FOR A PROCORPORATE/PROWAR AGENDA. YOU OBVIOUSLY, WOULD DISAGREE WITH MY TAKE ON THE ISSUE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET BOGGED DOWN INTO WHO LOST KOREA, AND WHETHER BUSH IS BETTER OR CLINTON. THE ONLY CLINTON I MENTIONED WAS HILLARY BECAUSE I THINK IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF A RIDICULOUS, DECEITFUL, PARTISAN HATCHET JOB AT THE HANDS OF THIS SO CALLED CONSERVATIVE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

ANSWER ONE QUESTION FOR ME:"DO YOU THINK IT IS FAIR FOR THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE ON HILLARY CLINTON TO CLAIM THAT SHE HAS MENTAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE SHE QUOTE FLIP FLOPS ON IRAQ? DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS IS A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION AND WHAT EVIDENCE DOES THIS PERSON HAVE FOR SUCH AN ASSERTION?

No, Mrs. Clinton having mental problems is an opinion. Personally, I think she is a sociopath, but I can't prove it.

You won't believe this but i don't like her either, but that is not the point. The point is, if you want anyone, anyone to consider you a credible source you can not just smear liberals with completely opinion-based speculation. Especially, when you consider the context of an encyclopedia, which is primarily used by middle school and grade school kids. This is the manual for the Hitler youth, basically, a method of deceiving and warping the minds of those that are least able to resist it. What other encylclopedia anywhere in the world would make such a ridiculous statement about a serious current day politician? Would encyclopedia Britannica call George bush a chimp, or say that he has brain damage?(I know I would)Of course they wouldn't, the right wing in this country has just made up myth after myth and people buy it. THIS ISN'T A CASE OF OH LIBERALS AND REPUBLICANS DO IT, OF COURSE LIBERAL POLITICIANS LIE, ALL PEOPLE LIE. THE HYPERRELIGIOUS AND ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES IN THIS COUNTRY ARE LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD THAT DOES NOT EXIST. NOT ALL THEORIES ARE CREATED EQUAL. UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT NOW IT SEEMS THAT THE MOST ANTI-SCIENTIFIC AND WARPED PROPAGANDA IS COMING OUT OF THE RIGHT, NOT THE LEFT.

You terdhead! Mrs Clinton may be a determined lady but she isn't a piece of dumb brianed crap l\Like laura Bush. Married to a drunk, sick war-mongering lying piece of **** like George must make her want to puke. GWB hasn't ever had guts enougth to get a hummer. He's too busy dreaming and jerkin off.

Clinton got caught doing what Geogre isn't man enough to do. Or rather can't find a woman to do it with.

Many encyclopedia's, and school curriculums around the world make ridiculous statements about our current and past politicians, in order to fuel hatred for the US.

"UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT NOW IT SEEMS THAT THE MOST ANTI-SCIENTIFIC AND WARPED PROPAGANDA IS COMING OUT OF THE RIGHT, NOT THE LEFT."

Your opinion!

"You terdhead! Mrs Clinton may be a determined lady but she isn't a piece of dumb brianed crap l\Like laura Bush."

How can I argue with a mature, well thought out, arguement like that?..... DOO-DOO FACE!

Zorghead - You woulodn't know a thought out arguement if it was shoved up you ass.

Ice,

I don't know what your F**king problem is, or what I did to you. You've obviously got some sort of problems. At least when POL slights my intelligence, he uses more constructive terms than terdhead. Where are you? Third grade? You're in the computer lab aren't you? Don't let the teacher catch you looking at barnyard porn! Get a life loser...

IT IS NOT MY OPINION ZORG. THAT THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IS HOSTILE TO SCIENCE AND LEARNING. IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS. YOU SIR DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, HALF LIFES OF ISOTOPES, EINSTEIN'S THEORIES OF RELATIVITY, OR THE GEOLOGICAL ACCREDIATION RATES THAT ARE USED TO AGE THE EARTH, OR GLOBAL WARMING. IN SHORT, THE STANDARD CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY IS IN BASIC OPPOSITION TO PHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, GEOLOGY, BIOLOGY, MARINE BIOLOGY, OCEANOGRAPHY, AND COSMOLOGY. AND THE PEOPLE IN MEDICAL SCIENCES AREN'T TOO THRILLED WITH THE BOGUS RIGHT TO LIFE ATTACKS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH EITHER. BASICALLY, YOU GUYS ARE THE ANTI-RATIONALITY CROWD, AT LEAST SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES. FISCAL CONSERVATIVES JUST WANT LOW TAXES AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT. THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES WANT US TO THROUGH SCIENCE OUT THE WASTE BASKET.

Not believing in all of these theories and scientific facts, some of whom are basically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt basically means that you think the entire basis of science is made up. If you believe science is either completely made up, or they are all wrong, then how do you claim that it is my opinion that social conservatives are anti-scientific? IT ISN'T OPINION, YOU YOURSELF HAVE SAID THAT YOU BASICALLY THINK MOST OF SCIENCE IS MADE UP. THAT IS THE EPITOME OF BEING ANTI OR UNSCIENTIFIC.

I'm sorry, but evolution isn't most of science. I have my doubts about our abilities to measure certain things that are on scales we don't have the ability to gauge or really even comprehend. Just because I think for myself and don't whole heartedly believe everything that the mainstream scientific community theorizes. I believe in proven science. You've basically said that you are a lemming and will believe whatever most scientists believe. Popular opnion does not equal fact. I'm sorry, but I think for myself. At one time it was "Basically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", that black people were lesser human beings. At one time it was "Basically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", that asbestos was great for making childrens pajamas. At another point in time it was "Basically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", that Fen Phen was a great way to loose weight. So basically, you have said that if we were alive in the 1800's, you would have though I was stupid and ignorant for not believing that blacks were inferior.

THAT WAS THE MOST COMICAL POST I HAVE YET TO READ. Please, I'll tell you what science has proven, sicence has proven that the earth is for certain not 7,000 years old and that it is at the very least many thousands of times longer than that. But, you call me a lemming, yet you are the one who holds onto the same ridiculous myth that they taught you in Sunday school eventhough it is proven fact, proven beyond any possible doubt that the earth is no were approaching the age in stated in the bible. You claim that half life of isotopes is a theory based on dating rocks, in fact, half life of isotopes is not a theory it is proven fact, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN ANY THESE ISOTOPES USED FOR DATING EVER DECAYING AT ANYTHING BUT THEIR HALF LIFE. I DON'T ASK YOU TO BELIEVE POPULAR OPINION. IN FACT, I AM THE ONE HERE THAT CASTS DOUBT ON POPULAR OPINION AND YOU ARE THE LEMMING THAT CAN'T LET GO OF A SILLY STORY TOLD YOU WHEN YOU WHERE A CHILD. THERE IS NO WAY THAT EARTH WAS CREATED BEFORE THE SUN, THERE IS NO WAY THAT VIRTUALLY ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE RELATING TO CREATION CAN PHYSICALLY BE CORRECT, YET YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM SUBSTITUTING YOUR EMOTION BASED FAITH FOR EVIDENCE, AND YOU CALL ME A LEMMING.

How very amusing that you call widely accepted FACTS and theories of science and you claim that some how this analogous to thinking black people are inferior. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS BASED ON EMPIRIC FACT NOT STUPID RACIST SUPERSTITION. THE HALF LIFE OF ISOTOPES IS BASED ON LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT STUDIES AND EXPERIMENTS. IT IS NOT BASED ON THE RAVINGS OF IGNORANT WHITE SUPREMACISTS. THE SHEER RIDICULOUSNESS OF YOUR METAPHORS ARE ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDING. YOU ARE LIVING IN BIZARRO WORLD MY FRIEND. TO CLAIM THAT BELIEVING IN RATIONAL, EMPIRICAL RESEARCH TODAY IS THE SAME THING AS BELIEIVING THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE INFERIOR IN THE 19TH CENTURY IS BEYOND NONSENSICAL. WHAT YOU DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT AT THIS VERY MOMENT WE HAVE TOOLS AND WE HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BASE THAT YOU CAN NOT COMPARE TO WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE 19TH CENTURY. YES SOME CRACKPOTS IN 1900 CLAIMED TO BE SCIENTISTS AND SAID THEY COULD TELL YOUR PERSONALITY BY RUBBING THE BUMPS ON YOUR HEAD. AND GUESS WHO DEBUNKED THESE CHARLATAINS, MODERN PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROLOGY?

The creation story in the Bible is a sheer imposibility, yet you believe that story. The half lives of isotopes HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO NOT BE A CONSTANT, YET YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT. SO SIR, WHO SOUNDS LIKE THE LEMMING TO YOU? AND YOUR ANALOGIES, QUITE FRANKLY ARE OFFENSIVE AND BEYOND LUDICROUS. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HAS NO ADJECTIVE TO DESCRIBE HOW ILLOGICAL AND INCREDIBLE YOUR EXAMPLES ARE.

Back in the 1800's they thought they we were just as smart as people like you think we are today. And in a couple hundred years they'll be looking back on us today saying, "Isn't it funny how much we thought we knew."

Can you point out to me where I argued the earth is 7000 years old?

I'm intelligent enough to know that we/I don't know all the answers. You are the one who bases your belief structure on theories that are 10% proven science, and 90% assumtion.

Hey Zorg! You say that blacks at one time were considered lesser human beings. How about coming up with some proof on that one. Just a little proof. Something factual.

Whatever, again, science has never shown the half life of carbon14 to be anything but a constant, and you don't believe it. This isn't a theory. Something that has been shown to be 100% correct is a fact. And where are you getting these ridiculous #s of 10% science and 90% whatever. For a guy who rails daily about the inaccuracies and mistakes of the works of scientists, and about how they make things; you certainly don't have a problem just making up numbers as you go along. As for the theories like evolution, most of the basic knowledge we have is theoretical, a scientific theory is anything that can be correct up to 99.999999% of the time. You claim that virtually every prevalent major scientific theory of the last oh 200 years is made up. When you claim evolution is bogus, you do realize that evolutionary theory is the basis of all modern biology. So you definetly don't believe in the works of any modern biologists.

IN SHORT ALL YOUR ANALOGIES ARE BOGUS, WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION, SO YOUR ANALOGY OF BLACK INFERIORITY AS A BELIEF IN THE 19TH CENTURY DOESN'T HOLD ANY WATER. YOU SEEM DOUBT 90% OF SCIENCE BUT YOU ACCEPT RELIGION. HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE GENESIS STORY IS A SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY. YOU DON'T SEEM TO DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF RELIGION, EVENTHOUGH VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IN THE GENESIS STORY CAN NOT HAVE OCCURRED. BUT SCIENCE IS JUST SO UNBELIEVABLE, WHAT A CROCK. I KNOW THE EARTH BEING FORMED BEFORE THE SUN AND IN ONE DAY THAT IS BELIEVABLE. ZORG. LETS JUST END THIS CHARADE, YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN CHURCH. You keep trying to find completely bogus ways to discredit anything but god inspired creation. And your tortured attempts to create controversy where there is none have been all total destroyed:

-the silly eye example
-carbon 14(being about dating rocks, C14 dating has nothing to do with dating rocks)
-Einstein's theory of relativity has been disproven and therefore you cant age the universe(actually the very source you quoted disagreed with you and said Einstein was correct)

Nothing is going to convince you, just do what Mens does, and say that I don't have any logical argument for my creationist beliefs but i believe them regardless of what anyone says. JUST DON'T TRY TO IMPOSE YOUR WRONGHEAD MYTHS ON THE REST OF US THROUGH PUBLIC FUNDING OF CHURCHES AND FORCED RELIGIOUS LEARNING IN SCIENCE CLASS AND YOU AND I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS.

Your arguments POL are as usual splendid. To further them a little almost every thing in the bible is made up. Fantasy at its worst. Also one of the most hyopcritical documents ever put forth. One place it says Do not kill. Then in another it's o.K. to kill your enemies. Even Moses is made up and David was as brutal a leader as Saddam Hussein and isreal was finally annihilated and spread because of its own corruption. Actually the Muslim faith is pretty nice compared to judaism and Christianity.

As far as black people are concerned, the church never said they were lesser human. The non-christian blacks were considered pagens and therefore candidates for slavery. The first Bull issued was in 1435 and addressed this matter That Bull also divided up the new world between portugal and spain. There were many Bulls issued between 1435 and the 19 hundreds, some discouraging slavery in different ways but none the less also condoneing it. The church went out of its way to condem slavery of american natives but offered no resistance to their slaughter. Finally in 1918 the church made some solid statements against slavery, however to this day they have not condemed it. My people have a petition before the pope, and have had for several years, It ask for a Bull of condemnation of slavery. It has yet to come.

Of the 20 million black people kidnapped and spirited out of Africa only 12 million made it. Slavery and murder is a fact of Christian economics. Today people wonder about the power strength and intelligence of black americans. The proof of darwinism lays in the pudding of black america. Only the strongest survived the misery and starvation of those horrible voyages. Only the strongest survived the brutality of slavery.

Native Americans were just murdered with everything available. Almost 80 million. Blacks and Natives slaughtered for christian economics. Now we have middle east people being slaughtered for the very same reason.

And while were on evolution and creation. Please someone explain how we got blacks, orientals, indians, native americans in less than seven thousand years when "GOD" supposedly only created two nit-wits and a nasty snake.

Thanks for the support Iceman. The lies that are routinely told the American public by the media and the politicians, especially in the far right is astounding. We are living in the freaking Matrix, except our overlords and masters are the redneck fascist oil billionaires and rich right wing zionists hell bent on committing genocide. If you read some rightwing journals they are already calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Fighting wars against several muslim nations. The far right in this country is as bad as Nazis, except there hate is directed at Muslims, gays, the poor, and other brown and black people. Really, nuking 70 million people is worse than anything the Nazis ever did, and many leading jews and far right conservatives are lobbying for the use of nuclear weapons in order to make an example out of Iran. One guy called nukes, pushing the "reset button on the middle east". This cocksucker was published on a benign sounding right wing media outlet. Can you imagine nuking infants, children, and innocents is considered pushing the reset button. Americas far right is so far out there, that if they were ever able to get total power under our system, they would make the Nazis look like passivists.

It's not a matter of the half-life of carbon-14.

"The rate of C-14 production today is 18% higher than the rate of decay (Whitelaw). This means that today we are experiencing a net increase in the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere. It is impossible to determine whether it has always been increasing (as argued by some creationists) or whether it has undergone cycles of increase and decrease (as argued by other creationists and evolutionary scientists). But one thing is certain: there is no reason to believe that the C-14:C-12 proportion has been constant throughout time, and good reason to believe it has been different, and often lower, in the past than it is today."

http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating

I know you won't like the source, but try to refute the information, not the source.

You're right Ice, slavery was a myth. LOL, how could I be so silly!? America has NO history of treating blacks as lesser humans, undeserving of equal rights. We've always respected and treated blacks as equals! Like the equal amount of work that whites and blacks performed on southern plantations. Ebony & Ivory, taking turns whipping eachother for fun, out in the cotton fields, it was a grand ol' time!

I don't know why you keep arguing against biblical accounts that I am not arguing for.

Evolution is not 90% of science. Can you give me any examples of inventions or medical breakthroughs that can be attributed to our understanding of evolution? Can you give me an example of somthing practical, that we would not be able to do if we did not understand evolution?

You're right, we will have to agree to disagree on this, I never expected to change your mind. It's obviously made up. I understand that I don't have concrete answers. Fotunately for me (in my opinion, admittedly), I'm not so callused to the notion of a higher power, that I am willing to overlook the impossibilities and theoretical assumtions of evolution as indisputable. The frustrating thing is that you can't see that your "scientific" belief's are largely faith based. Not so much a faith in science, as a faith in the absence of God or a higher powers involvment, in the whole equation.

Actually, I am an agnostic and not an atheist who can't really make up his mind. I don't have a faith in the abscence of god, what I have faith in is that ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION IS MADE UP NONSENSE. AND I KNOW THAT YOUR MOTIVATION IN THIS SUBCONSCIOUSLY FEIGNED SKEPTICISM OF SCIENCE COMES PRINCIPALLY FROM YOUR DESIRE TO JUSTIFY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOUR SKEPTICISM DOESN'T COME FROM FAULTY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OR ANALYSIS AND THE BIAS OF SCIENCTISTS, YOUR SKEPTICISM COMES FROM YOU MOTIVATION TO VALIDATE YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I KNOW IT AND YOU KNOW IT, BECAUSE ALL OF YOUR CRITICISMS COME NOT FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS DEEPLY RESEARCHED THE FLAWED METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTISTS', AND IS NOW DEEPLY CONCERNED. PARDON ME BUT YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC CONCEPTS IN SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CRITICIZE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. YOUR CRITICISMS ARE OF THAT OF SOMEONE WHO IS MOTIVATED TO CREATE CONTROVERSY WERE THERE IS VERY LITTLE.


I admit, I don't have the technical training to answer many of the questions you pose, and some of the questions you pose do not have complete scientific answers. However, the issue here is that you disbelieve a whole host of scientific theories that are BY FAR THE MOST WELL SUPPORTED POSITIONS IN THEIR FIELD. THE ODDS OF GLOBAL WARMING, THE BIG BANG, EVOLUTION, THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, ISOTOPE HALF LIFES, AND GEOLOGICAL THEORIES OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS ALL BEING WRONG AS YOU CLAIM IS A ZILLION TO ONE. MAYBE SOME OF THESE THEORIES NEED REVISION, MAYBE WE WILL FIND THAT THEY ONLY GIVE PARTIAL ANSWERS OR THAT SOME CORRECTIONS ARE REQUIRED. BUT YOU BASICALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THESE CONCEPTS ARE ALL OFF BASE AND MADE UP. YOU HAVE SAID AS MUCH.

I CAN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS I CAN FOR YOU, BUT NO MATTER HOW GOOD MY EXPLAINATIONS ARE, OR EVEN IF I GOT THE HEAD OF MIT'S BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT HERE TO TALK TO YOU, YOU STILL WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT. AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR SKEPTICISM IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR DESIRE TO VALIDATE YOUR RELIGION AND WORLD VIEW.

AGAIN I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE ANYTHING FROM CREATIONWIKI, OR CONSERVAPEDIA, I AM NOT GOING TO PRETEND LIKE I CONSIDER THESE PEOPLE CREDIBLE, I DON'T CONSIDER THEM CREDIBLE THEY WEAR THEIR BIAS ON THEIR SLEAVE AND THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE FOUNDED ON PROVING CREATION THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY INCLUDING DECEIT. I JUST FINNISHED POSTING A WHOLE ARTICLE FILLED WITH DOZENS OF MISCHARACTERIZATIONS AND LIES IN THESE "CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN" SOURCES, AND THE ARTICLE'S SPECIFIC THESIS WAS BASICALLY THAT THESE GUYS WILL MAKE UP THINGS TO SUIT THEIR IDEOLOGY OF PROVING CREATION. SCIENCE IS NOT MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO DISPROVE GOD OR FUTHER ATHEISM, THEY ARE INDIFFERENT ABOUT GOD, THEY DON'T FEEL IT IS THEIR JOB TO PROVE OR DISPROVE HIS EXISTENCE. THE THEISTS AND CREATIONISTS WILL ACCEPT ANY TORTURED LOGIC IN ORDER TO PROVE GOD. FIND SOMETHING ON A LEGITIMATE ACADEMIC SITE. CREATIONWIKI, IS NOT LEGITIMATE PERIOD, END OF STORY. THE ORGANIZATION'S NAME IS EVIDENCE OF A PERVASIVE BIAS THAT MAKES THESE PEOPLE COMPLETELY UNTRUSTWORTHY AS A SCIENTIFIC SOURCE.

CREATIONWIKI ALSO STATES THAT MAN AND DINOSAURS LIVED AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT NOAH TOOK THEM ON HIS ARK. YOU THINK I AM GOING TO CONSIDER ANY THING THESE PEOPLE SAY AS CREDIBLE. YOU ARE RIGHT I DON'T LIKE THE SOURCE, IN FACT IF YOU EVER USE CONSERVAPEDIA OR CREATIONWIKI TO BACK UP ANY ARGUMENT, I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, WHATEVER ARGUMENT YOU MAKE I AM MORE LIKELY NOT TO BELIEVE. IF CREATIONWIKI TOLD ME THAT WATER WAS WET I WOULD GO JUMP IN THE OCEAN JUST TO MAKE SURE.


(It is furthermore presumed they were still alive at the time of the global flood and taken on board Noah's ark. Evidence to support this perspective includes:

The Bible specifically states that a breeding pair of every kind of animal came to the ark.
The fossil record is filled with the corpses of dinosaurs that were buried during the deluge.
The abundant physical evidence of recent existence of dinosaurs.
It should be noted that although the Biblical description of Noah's ark states it as large enough to host even the largest known specimens of dinosaurs, it is logical that younger / smaller varieties were taken aboard. Reptiles are the only terrestrial vertebrate that continuously grows as long as they live. Mammals on the other hand, have an adolescent period following which there is no further growth. Therefore, it is arguable that many of these "terrible lizards" were simply much older than modern varieties.)
http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur

THE WHOLE ENTIRE CASE FOR THIS ASSININE ARTICLE ON CREATIONWIKI IS THE GENESIS STORY AND THEY SAY AS MUCH IN THE ARTICLE. TALK ABOUT SPECULATIVE, AND WILD "ASSUMPTIONS".

The entire section on Carbon-14 dating has the following sources listed, and no footnotes to any specific text. This is the most poorly sourced document I have seen in publication, a law student turning a term paper with 3 freaking sources total would get an automatic F. HERE IS THE ENTIRE SOURCE SECTION FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE IT IS LAUGHABLE IF YOU LOOK AT IT:

Radiocarbon dating after forty years: do creationists see it as supporting the biblical creation and flood? A Review and Critique of Pertinent Creationist Writing, 1950-1990 by Whitelaw, R. L., 1993, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol 29(4) pp.170-183.
Compatibility of Biblical Chronology with C-14 Age by R. H. Brown. Origins 21(2):66-79 (1994)
Radiocarbon dating and Genesis by Selva Harris


EVERY SINGLE SOURCE HAS BIBLE OR CREATION IN IT, LITERALLY EVERY SOURCE IS A CREATIONIST AND MAKES REFERENCE TO THE BIBLE IN THE TITLE OF THEIR WORK. WOW, REALLY SCIENTIFIC STUFF, LIKE I SAID THIS IS A SHODDY EXCUSE FOR A VALID ACADEMIC SOURCE, THERE ARE NO FOOTNOTES. THE GUY USES 4 SOURCES IN HIS WHOLE ARTICLE, AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CITES GO TO WHICH EXAMPLES. AND VIRTUALLY EVERY SOURCE SEEMS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED NOT SCIENTIFICALLY. IN SHORT, EVEN BEYOND THE FACT THAT THIS ORGANIZATION PRESUMES CREATION IN THEIR NAME; FOR A DOZEN DIFFERENT REASONS THIS ARTICLE IS SO POORLY SOURCED AND SO THIN ON BACK UP, CONTAINING VIRTUALLY NO LEGITIMATE ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONS. YOU WON'T FIND HARVARD, MIT, CAMBRIDGE, OXFORD, OR EVEN CAL TECH IN ANY BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THIS ARTICLE. INSTEAD YOU WILL FIND ENTITIES LIKE "CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY". NO JOHNS HOPKINS STUDIES, NO CITATIONS TO FAMOUS WELL KNOWN SCIENTISTS, JUST SOURCES WHO ALL PROFESS TO ALREADY HAVE THEIR CONCLUSION MADE UP.

First off ZORG You said Religion - or church said blacks were less human. Got some news for you: all slaves and indentured were treated in the same manner and color was not the issue. Like most of what you profess. Total horse-****. Creation, the bible is all of the same, but with maybe other kinds of manure mixed in. Post what you like and the rest of us just chalk it up to ignorant SUPERSTITION. Science isn't perfect, but superstition is voluantary ignorance.

Uh-huh, and you have no bias?

Your right, neither of us are experts, you don't have to be an expert to have common sense, and the ability to understand concepts. I understand the arguments for evolution, and the more I learn about them, the more holes I see in them.

There's no way I can, but I wish I could prove to you that I am not on a bible campaign. I don't have any idea how accurate the genisis account is. I could be metaphorical, or just plain false, I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. I don't know how the universe came into being. I do know that the theory of evolution is based on assumtions, and you have to have faith that those unproven assumtions are true. Carbon dating or other dating methods have huge margins of error, and when they get dates that do not agree with the age that they believe to be the age of the thing they are testing, they keep testing until they get the answer they want.

You are the one that is closed minded, you won't listen to the opinions of anyone that disagree's with you, because it's not the most popular opinion. Your reaction to creationwiki is that of a child putting his hands over his ears and shouting, "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU'RE NOT TALKING!!". If I just wrote off your arguments by saying, "That propaganda from some evolutionist wacko, loony, website, and I won't justify it with an answer"; you'd berate me for it. If popular opinion is how you judge the validity of an argument... I don't know... God help you I guess.

Zorg., the reason we can't have a discussion is you want me to accept people as credible who have no credibility whatsoever. I don't accept them, especially in light of the article I posted to start this VERY THREAD THAT POINTED OUT DOZENS OF LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS ON THE PART OF THIS SO CALLED CONSERVATIVE SOURCES. FIND ME A RESPECTED JOURNAL, A COLLEGE LIBRARY, SOMETHING THAT HAS CREDIBILITY. CREATIWIKI, HAS NONE, AND IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, THEN REALLY THERE IS NOT POINT TO ARGUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT CREATIONWIKI DOESN'T HAVE ANY SOURCES EXCEPT THOSE THAT ALREADY BELIEVE IN CREATION. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE ONLY CITED SOURCE FOR THE EXCERPT I PROVIDED WAS THE BIBLE. YOU CAN NOT PROVE THE BIBLE, BY LOOKING AT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, TAKING THAT AS FACT AND THEN PROVING THE BIBLE, BY USING THE BIBLE AS THE ONLY POINT OF SUPPORT. STUDY LOGIC BUDY, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CIRCULAR LOGIC. TELL ME ONE CLAIM ABOUT CREATION THAT THE BIBLE HAS MADE THAT HAS PROVEN TRUE, HAS SCIENCE FOUND A CONVINCING CASE FOR THE EARTH BEING CREATED BEFORE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SUN? IS THERE EMPIRIC EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE CREATION OF THE EARTH JUST A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND IN SEVEN DAYS? THERE IS NONE THE ONLY SUPPORT, ANYWHERE FOR THESE POSITIONS IS WITHIN THE BIBLE AND IN CREATIONIST CIRCLES. LIKE I SAID, I HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION OF A SOURCE, AND SOURCES LIKE THIS ARE NOT CREDIBLE FOR HALF A DOZEN REASONS.

1. the guy uses no footnotes, even a 12 year olds fcukin book report is required to have footnotes.
2. He uses three cites all of whom are self-avowed creationists as the only sources for the article.
3. Libby the founder of C-14 dating won a noble prize, what are the scientific credentials of the people who wrote this article?
4. The whole majority of support for the thesis of the article is the genesis story. You can not use the Genesis story as basically the sole support to prove the genesis story, this is text book circular logic.


THIS IS A SHODDY, CRAPPY, AND IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN TEXT WITH ZERO, ZERO PERSUASIVE VALUE TO ANY OBJECTIVE PERSON. IF ANY FIRST YEAR COLLEGE STUDENT ANYWHERE TURNED THIS F---ING PAPER IN WITH CIRCULAR LOGIC, WITH THREE SOURCES, AND WITH NO FOOTNOTES HE WOULD GET AN F. WHY THE HELL WOULD I CONSIDER ANYTHING THESE PROVEN LIARS HAVE TO SAY AS VALID. I WILL NOT ACCEPT INCREDIBLE PEOPLE AS CREDIBLE, IF THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION, THEN I SUGGEST WE END THE THREAD.

NOT TO MENTION THE FACT, THAT HIS PRINCIPAL SOURCE THAT YOU SITE BY THE WAY DOESN'T EVEN HAVE DOCTORATE, DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PHD. SO A CONSERVATIVE GRADUATE STUDENT IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN DR. LIBBY THE FOUNDER OF C-14 DATING, WHO WON A NOBLE PRIZE BY THE WAY FOR HIS DISCOVERY. IF THIS CONSERVATIVE AWHOLE GRADUATE STUDENT, WHICH BY THE WAY WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT DISCIPLINE HE GOT HIS M.S. DEGREE IN, IS MORE CORRECT THAN A NOBLE PRIZE WINNER HOW COME HE DOESN'T WIN THE NOBLE PRIZE? HOW COME CONSERVATIVE AWHOLE WITH A MASTER'S DEGREE DOESN'T HAVE A F---ING PHD, AND WOULDN'T BE DEEMED ENOUGH OF AN EXPERT TO TEACH ANYONE EXCEPT A ROOM FULL OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN LET THE "EXPERT" IN YOUR ARTICLE TEACH A CLASS AT BUTTCRACKER UNIVERSITY TO A BUNCH OF FRESHMAN. WHY WOULD I ACCEPT HIS THESIS OVER THAT OF A FREAKING NOBLE PRIZE WINNER?

If popular opinion is how you judge the validity of an argument... I don't know... God help you I guess.
)Zorg.

WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLEST DISTINCTION, THE CUTTING EDGE OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT POPULAR OPINION? THERE IS EMPIRICAL, FACTUAL TEST RESULTS BACKING THIS STUFF UP, THESE OPINIONS ARE BACKED UP BY EMPIRICAL DATA. AND YES AT THE VERY CUTTING EDGE OF SCIENCE IT IS GUESSWORK, BUT THAT IS STEP #1 OF THE PROCESS, BACKED UP BY TESTING AND REVISING OF THE HYPOTHESIS. ACTUALLY IN AMERICA 70% OF THE POPULATION SAY THEY ARE CHRISTIAN, AND THAT THEY BELIEVE IN GOD. MOST OF THE WORLD UNFORTUNATELY SEEMS TO BELIEVE MORE CLOSELY TO THE WAY YOU BELIVE THAN I DO, SO HOW COULD I BE THE ONE TRYING TO SETTLE AN ARGUMENT ON POPULAR OPINION. POPULAR OPINION MEANS NOTHING TO ME, IN FACT, AS A CYNIC I TEND TO DISBELIEVE WHAT ANYONE TELLS ME UNTIL I SEE INDEPENDENT COLLABORATION OR UNTIL I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AND THE LOGIC MAKES SENSE. WHEN 70-80% OF THE COUNTRY THOUGHT THE IRAQ WAR WAS A GREAT SUCCESS, I SAID BULLSHEET. AND I HAVE THE RECORD ON THIS VERY WEBSITE OF CONTINUALLY REJECTING POPULAR OPINION FOR A FACT BASED ANALYSIS. POPULAR OPINION IN AMERICA THINKS ISRAEL IS A LITTLE VICTIM I DON'T BELIEVE THAT LOAD OF SHEET EITHER. POPULAR OPINION IN AMERICA SAYS THAT WE HAVE A LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT CRAP EITHER NOT FOR A SECOND. POPULAR OPINION HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHY CARBON-14 IS ACCEPTED AS FACT, AND HAVING A MARGIN OF ERROR IS STANDARD FOR ANY PROCESS THAT DEALS WITH COMPLICATED VARIABLES. IT IS IN FACT A SIGN OF CREDIBILITY THAT SCIENTISTS WILL TELL YOU THEIR WORK HAS A MARGIN OF ERROR, WHERE AS THE RELIGIOUS AND THEISTS DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BE MISTAKEN AT ALL.

Please don't mischaracterize my arguements, I do not basis my beliefs on popular opinion, if I did, I wouldn't have come out in freaking 2003 to say that this Iraq war would descend into a civil war and would be a disaster. Now popular opinion has shifted and come to accept what I have been saying for 3 f---ing years. When I opposed this war three quarters of the American people thought it was the greatest and most necessary of policies. It seems that you are the one who can't let go of those little myths people made up an eon ago to comfort themselves. Believing in god is the ultimate act of accepting popular opinion, because through all of my searchs I have yet to find an empirical and fact based proof of this mythic entity that everyone is so sure exists.

Alright, I give up, you win, there's not point in going further. I just don't know what kind of factual proof you could expect to find about God. The very nature of what people who believe in a God, believe him/her to be, makes proof of him/her unattainable. Yet to those of us who do believe, the proof is everywhere. Even if we could prove the existence of a God, I think we would need a complete, or at least near complete understanding of the universe and everything in it.

I am not asking you to prove god, you can't and I can't disprove his existence. My beef has never been with god, but with religion anywhere. Even assuming that there is a creative god, we know for a fact that the universe is freaking unbelievably immense. The idea that the creater of gazillions of worlds and galaxies would really care about a couple of gay guys doing each other in cleveland or los angeles is really mind numbing to me. I don't have a problem with god, only with god's self-appointed representatives on earth. If god is Almighty he doesn't need a manual, a sales pitch, or a middleman.

What I want you to do, if I could be so bold to ask is that you weigh your own sources. I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY INFORMATION FROM JUNK SOURCES. YOU ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY LIBERAL BIAS. I ADMIT I AM LIBERAL, BUT I DON'T POST FROM THE WORLD SOCIALIST FORUM, ALTHOUGH QUITE FRANKLY I THINK THEY ARE A MUCH MORE CREDIBLE GROUP THAN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN MEDIA. WHEN I WANT TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENTS I ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THE MOST CONSERVATIVE SOURCE I CAN FIND, BECAUSE ADMISSIONS FROM THE OTHER SIDE ARE SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL, THAN SELF SERVING COMMENTS FROM THE CREATION COMMUNITY WHO HAVE THEIR MIND UP REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS. THEY HAD THE SAME POSITION ON CREATION 2000 YEARS AGO AND NOTHING OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION THAT WE HAVE WITNESSED HAS CHANGED THEIR POSITION.

ZORG., I THINK YOU ARE A BRIGHT, RESPECTFUL INDIVIDUAL. UNFORTUNATELY, HERE IS THE KICKER, YOU ARE UNBELIEVABLY STUBBORN AND YOU ARE DELUDED BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO ENOUGH INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN WORLD VIEW. THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF AMERICANS. THEY LOOK AT FOX AND THEY THINK WELL THAT IS THE TRUTH IT IS ON TV AND THEY EVEN INTERVIEWED SOME GUY IN A SUIT AT THE WHITEHOUSE SO IT MUST BE TRUE. I IMPLORE YOU, JUST AS AN EXPERIMENT READ THE ENGLISH, CANADIAN, AND AUSTRALIAN COVERAGE OF THE NEWS AND JUST COMPARE THEIR COVERAGE TO AMERICA'S AND SEE IF YOU NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE. AND DON'T JUST CLOSE YOUR MIND BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS. I READ THE JERUSALEM POST, HARETZ, AND EVERY ARTICLE BY PAT BUCHANAN I DEEPLY DISAGREE WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE. I CITE WELL RESPECTED CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE WSJ, BUT I DO NOT CONSIDER FRINGE GROUPS WHO MAKE UP THEIR OWN ENCYCLOPEDIA TO LIE TO SCHOOL CHILDREN AS CREDIBLE CONSERVATIVES.

"ADMISSIONS FROM THE OTHER SIDE ARE SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL"

Totally agree. Admissions from the other side, however, are also harder to find, and I don't have all day. I know that sounds like a cop out, but it's not an excuse, it's just my reality.

I don't get my opinions from fox news. I really don't watch a lot of TV news. I mostly just look things up on the internet, and try to dig as much as I can. I don't come by what I believe based on the latest story I've heard. Admittedly, I don't know everyting, and don't have the time to read every news source. I form my opinions, like everyone else, based on what knowledge, experience, and intuition I have at my disposal at any given point in my life.

"YOU ARE UNBELIEVABLY STUBBORN AND YOU ARE DELUDED BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO ENOUGH INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN WORLD VIEW"

Sure... I'm stubborn, you're also stubborn. What's wrong with that? If you're going to believe something, believe it! At least until you are sufficiently convinced otherwise. I'm glad you're stubborn, otherwise you wouldn't be very good at arguing. You can't say that YOUR background has nothing to do with your world view, everyone's does, and should.

Totally agree. Admissions from the other side, however, are also harder to find, and I don't have all day. I know that sounds like a cop out, but it's not an excuse, it's just my reality.)Zorg

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN REALITY IF YOUR REALITY DOESN'T JIVE WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD. HELL I COULD GO AROUND AND BELIEVE THAT RAIN IS THE TEARDROPS OF ANGELS, THAT IS FINE. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A GROUP THAT WANTS TO INTERJECT THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS THAT HAVE ZERO FACTUAL OR SCIENTIFIC BACK UP INTO OUR PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOLS, AND TO MANY OTHER AREAS OF PUBLIC POLICY. OR TO INTERJECT THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE GETTING EQUAL ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE PART OF A GAY COUPLE. IF YOU WANT TO GO AROUND AND BELIEVE THINGS THAT DON'T JIVE WITH THE SCIENCE THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE, BUT IF YOU WANT TO INTERJECT THOSE BELIEFS INTO POLICY LIKE THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT WANTS TO DO ACROSS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY WELL THEN THAT IS WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM.


And Zorg., now adays you can easily access alternate points of view. I read the BBC, Independent, Guardian, and the Age out of Australia. Maybe a couple articles a week from each in a matter of 15 minutes. If you are truly a curious and fair person, you will stop just buying the party line that is fed to us in our media. Every one has a bias, but the way that you see it is by being exposed to different voices and seeing what makes sense and what is just spin.

As far as evolution goes, I do read the alternate opinions. I've spent a lot of time reading them. I do understand science, I got good grades in it. It's true I do come at it from a differnt point of view than you, but I don't think what I think just because someone said it. I believe what I believe because so far nothing has convinced me otherwise. I don't have faith in our ability to understand the origins of the universe scientifically, call it stubborn, stupid, ignorant, whatever... I didn't come to the conclusion blindly, I continually question my belief's, it's ignorant not to.

As far as world politics, your right. I do need to read more foreign news. You'll notice I don't chime in on world politics as often, for that reason.