Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_Baby_Syndrome

That is one of the craziest things I have ever read.

These people are such cretins. Everytime you think they've plumbed the depths, they manage to go one worse. Fuck these people. (sorry for pointing out the blatantly obvious)

Let's be clear here, Mr. Schlafly; you are currently defending people who pick up an infant and shake the child so violently that it causes damage to the spinal cord and causes the brain to carom off the inside of the skull rupturing blood vessels and destroying tissue. I repeat, this is not simply a fiction concocted by an overeager prosecutor in order to punish some poor unsuspecting guardian. SSchultz 12:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)

So in other words the papers written in JPANDS are going to be favored over the CDC, NIH, JAMA, NEJM, and other medical groups which all claim that SBS is a form of child abuse and the leading cause of traumatic death in infants? What is the standard of evidence you're wanting met in order to present SBS for what it is (that being the brutalization of helpless infants)? SSchultz 22:03, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Of course. Everybody knows that JPANDS and other credible, neutral sources like American Thinker and Newsbusters are far more credible and reliable than liberal medical journals. After all, all conservative ideologies are fact, while liberal ones are fiction. JKaplanek 13:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The second bit is too Poe's Law to call.

2nd bit is obv a joke - i generally assume every batshit post on conservapedia is except ones signed aschlafly

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SSchultz

ok lol

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Duck.jpg/60px-Duck.jpg

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point.

The fuck is that supposed to mean?

First election without incumbents since 1928

If eligible to do so, the President of the United States often runs for reelection. If the President does not run, the Vice President of the United States will often run to replace the President after he leaves office. 2008 will mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the Presidential election.

lol i misread that never mind

Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --Hsmom 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What differences do you find so compelling?--Aschlafly

In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.[67]. Although Obama is a Muslim, his small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother. According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans [68].

really, please tell me that this site is a sick joke. It cannot be real, can it? I worry about what our world has come to when I can't tell reality from satire. People really do believe this crap, so I am left to wonder if it's meant to be real or not <sigh>.

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President". The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --anonymous123 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda; second, the radical, Marxist theology preached by his church; and third, the Muslim concept of taqiyya outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. SMichaels 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Alberto Gonzales. The first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General, was consistently mocked on liberal websites as 'Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales' [4] during his tenure. Speedy Gonzales is a reference to a disparaging stereotypical cartoon character of Hispanics that Hollywood attempted to popularize in the 1950s and 60s. Upon his retirement, NBC News anchor Matt Lauer called Gonzales "a piñata" for the Democrats.

first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda

it's true that Muslims are all about abortion and the gays

it's awesome how they try and make him out to be a muslim atheist radical liberation theology christian.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Did_Jesus_ever_claim_to_be_God%3F

Your American history course has some...interesting elements. For example, the fact that students' answers--and grades--are viewable by anyone and everyone who cares to look at them. No privacy whatsoever. Then there's the fact that every one of them seems to earn a high A.

At the university where I teach, either of these things--the lack of privacy, and the grade inflation--would be basis for a review of my teaching and potentially for dismissal. I wonder if you might comment on why you've chosen these approaches.--Jknott 08:27, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

We have prayer and honor in our homeschooling community, in contrast to the university culture. A student can leave his wallet on a classroom table and no one will steal the money inside. That's not true in a university these days, unfortunately. --Aschlafly 08:33, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

they're really hanging in there, waiting for the mask-off, on the obama page:

Obama will likely become the first Muslim to be sworn in as President, on January 20, 2009, and could select the Koran for this purpose.

A thought to eliminate parodists

I was thinking that a lot of parodists and vandals seem to be signing up. I wonder if there would be a way when someone signs up to scan the cookies stored on their web-browser and if there are any parodist or liberal websites in their history then it would prevent sign up. What do you think? QWest 19:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Clever suggestion. Something to think about. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

But wait, what about number 15 on Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia? There would be no way to see if it were a potential liberal vandal, or a conservative who was reading up on the enemy, so to speak, and it would also be in violation of at least one privacy law. --Konstanty 20:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

That's a pretty Orwellian suggestion. Besides, any serious parodist could simply clear their cookies. HelpJazz 20:45, 25 October 2008 (EDT) (Not to mention the points that Konstanty already brought up.
The points that others have made are good one, but the one that I would stress is the invasion of privacy aspect. No, this is not a good idea. Philip J. Rayment 22:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The information wouldn't need to be made public. An automated process could look at the cookies or browser history, it wouldn't need to be stored so that way no person could see it. It's not an invasion of privacy, merely vetting potential members. QWest 13:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The things on my computer are private; even if nobody sees them with their own eyes, they are gaining information about me by reading cookies. So it's still an invasion of privacy even if no human reads the files on my computer. HelpJazz 13:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Bugler 14:01, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Assuming that the people in charge are all above reproach and infallible. Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, criminals forfeit rights by engaging in unlawful behavior. Police will frisk and search the clothing of a burglar, for example, and he has no justified complaints based on privacy.--Aschlafly 14:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Religion is the opium of the people
The hyperlinked source (17) on the aforementioned quote from Karl Marx is broken and I couldn't check to see if the quote was correct, so I did a little bit of research. In Selected Writings of Karl Marx (ISBN: 0-87220-218-6), the quote is translated as this:

Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and at the same time the protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

It seems as if without the square brackets the connotation of the statement becomes drastically different, and implies neutrality rather than outward hostility. --JBEdgeworth 10:14, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, JB -- that's valuable insight. The purpose of this article, however, is to take things out of context, to caricature atheism as much as possible. Providing the quote in its full, nuanced context would not aid toward that end. Ungtss 11:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

The context to that Marx quote is just part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. You can't prove that he actually wrote that, unless you use sources written by lefties or published by lefties, which would obviously be biased. I suggest you read some books by creationist Christian fundamentalists on Marx instead of academic scholars (see professor values) if you want to know the truth.

Yes, actually using a quote by Marx would be inappropriate.--British_cons (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

I've endorsed before, and will continue to endorse, moderated account creation. That said, "frisking criminals" is a terrible analogy because that presumes everyone who signs up here is a criminal until proven otherwise! Likewise Bugler's bizarrely liberal "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear." I thought we were conservatives? Aziraphale 14:59, 26 October 2008 (EDT)#

In what way is my comment 'bizarrely liberal'? Bugler 15:05, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The Liberal mentality is that an infringement of individual rights is fine because, after all, it only really affects the guilty. The true Conservative is a staunch defender of individual liberties in the face of a constant barrage of proposed limitations; allowing an infringement because "it doesn't hurt me" is just a safe way of saying "I'm not up to fighting this fight." Aziraphale 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Bugler's comment is not "liberal." As the owner of this site, Aschlafly has the obligation and the right to protect his property. He is well within his rights to do whatever he has to to protect this site. We already know liberals will bleat that "its an invasion of privacy." They really like to invoke that one when it come to killing unborn children! Hopefully, some of the more liberal leaning discussants on this page will open their minds and embrace conservative values.--Saxplayer 15:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Azi, by that logic you'd be saying that the supporters of the Patriot Act were all liberals. Because we said there's no problem in allowing the government to look at library borrowing records for recognized patterns of reading by terrorists and anti-Americans, because there's no harm that regular Americans would get caught in the dragnet. We allowed an "infringement" of our individual rights "because it doesn't hurt me" so by your reasoning the Patriot Act was letting the liberals win. I think any conservative would find that a laughable conclusion! -Foxtrot 15:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

it's awesome how they try and make him out to be a muslim atheist radical liberation theology christian.

― s1ocki, Saturday, 8 November 2008 16:06 (16 minutes ago)

Yes! I was thinking something like that myself, but I couldn't quite put it into words the way you did.

Stalin pic at head of the atheism article

I think the Joseph Stalin pic at the head of the article is a nice compliment to the Hitler pic at the head of the evolution article. If anyone has a suggestion on a better pic of Stalin which could be used this would certainly be appreciated. conservative 14:34, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they are both fantastic, though I think the Hitler pic is better.--British_cons (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

British cons, I believe you have fine taste in pictures although your glowing endorsement may be providing undue influence in my estimation of your taste in pictures. :) If you could find a better pic of Stalin I would be most appreciative. In the meantime, I will replace the current picture of Stalin in the evolution article with the newly found Stalin picture which I featured in the atheism article. conservative 14:48, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a crying shame there weren't any homosexual dictators, otherwise we could add one at the top of the article on homosexuality. Can we pass Alexander the Great off as a bloodthirsty gay?

We could always go with a couple of the early American presidents and maybe even some prominent scientists like A. Einstein. Foreversage 18:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

The only president who there's any real evidence for homosexuality is James Buchanan, and he wasn't really a bloodthirsty dictator or anything, just incompetent. --JeremyDB 18:51, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Both the Joseph Stalin pic at the head of the article and the Hitler pic at the head of the evolution article do not fairly represent atheists or evolutionists fairly. Putting Stalin's picture there is like putting Osama bin Laden's picture at the head of a theism article!--JArneal 18:48, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Jarneal, do you suggest we put at the top of the article a pic and caption reflecting how much less per capita American atheists give to charity even if church giving is not counted? See: Atheism and Uncharitableness conservative 19:57, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not really part of this discussion, but I would put that picture with the section on atheism and uncharitableness. (Personally, I think that shouldn't be in this article at all; this article should be about atheism as a philosophical viewpoint. The "atheism and uncharitableness" bit I would put in an article on atheists, atheism in America, or American atheists.) -CSGuy 20:00, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

CSGuy, I see no reason not to talk about the causes and effects of atheism. I do plan on covering more about the causes of atheism using some excellent sources. conservative 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Spam Filter for no reason

Andy, the below is an addition to http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Testament_understanding_through_the_Jewish_perspective that I am trying to make. Each time I try to put it up, I get a Spam filter sign and the indicated word of offence "sh-t". I didn't write it and I don't see it. Maybe someone else could try. Could you get the below up for me? thanks!Bert Schlossberg 05:51, 6 November 2008 (EST)

As far as I can see, the problem arises from the Girgashites in Example 3.--BRichtigen 06:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

That would be it. You can get caught by words already in the page or section that you are editing. In this particular case, this would should only be rejected as a complete word or in particular combinations, but that's not the way it was added. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well, much as I try to avoid drawing on skills who use is indirectly and partially responsible for the enactment of the filter, I've enacted a stopgap measure - changed the 'i' to a Greek iota. It looks almost the same, although I think Jesus had something to say about changing not one iota ... --Wikinterpreter

Different Ρerspectives

Εver since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Εarth. Υoung-Εarth creationists reject the uniformitarian time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that some dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Creationary Ρerspective

Young earth creationists believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the creation week[5] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans. Αs such, they reject the theory of evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Τhey believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the Garden of Eden) eating only plants[6]; that pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[7]; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[8]; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Αrk are still around today.[9]

Τhey use archaeological,[10] fossil,[11] and documentary[12] evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Βecause the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur." Ηowever, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,[13] [14], although others have claimed that Βehemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Υoung-Εarth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

In his book "The City of God", 5th century theologian St. Augustine supports this theory by asserting that giant bones that people sometimes encounter belonged to creatures present during the Great Flood but not surviving long afterwards.
Εxtinction

Creationists reject the "Great Ιmpact Τheory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. [15]

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "Νew Τheory of Dinosaur Εxtinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. [16] Ιt is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.[17]
Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting
Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting

* Τhere have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
o Α thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Χinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Τoday.[Citation Needed]
o Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name Μokele-mbembe[18], and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. Τhe reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the University of Chicago has made several expeditions to find the creature. Αnother biologist has reported seeing the creature.[18]
o Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of Papua New Guinea since 1990.[19]
* Τhere are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
o Αn expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Ρaleontology with the United States Νational Μuseum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.[20][21].
o Τhe Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [22]
o Εngravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. Τhey are on the tomb of bishop Richard Βell, who died in 1496.[23]
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
o Τhe description of the "Thunder bird" of American Indians matches the descriptions of pterosaurs.[18]

* Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.
o Τhe World Βook Εncyclopedia states that: "Τhe dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. Τhey are much like the great reptiles (dinosaurs) which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." [24]. Dragons exist in the folklore of many Εuropean and Αsian cultures.[25] World Βook Εncyclopedia says, "Ιn Εurope, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. Βut in Αsia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25]
o Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese calendar. Εvery other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

A portion of the artwork the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina
A portion of the artwork the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina

* Τhat dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the Cretaceous strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
o Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel [26], the Wollemi Pine [27] and the Coelacanth [28] [29].

* Τhe recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. [30]

Dinosaur fossils and Ηuman Fossils and Geological Strata

Ιt is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.[47][48] Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.[47]

Εvolutionists point out that radiometric dating of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Υoung Εarth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.[47] Μoreover, as the biblical Flood would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. Τhis is in fact what we find.[49]

Αpproximately 70% of the Εarth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. Ιn addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.[49] Αlso, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with coelacanths yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.[47]

Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? 50something 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "kinds", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? 50something 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. 50something 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? Feichineejits 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this convergence, but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
Philip J. Rayment 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. Feichineejits 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days as would be measured on Earth. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. Philip J. Rayment 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! 50something 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that plesiosaurs and the like, and pterodactyls and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for archosauria. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--All Fish Welcome 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. 50something 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. 50something 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation mechanisms in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? Philip J. Rayment 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? 50something 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[1]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, 50something 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying?

All that arguing over scanning cookies and it can't even be done.

omg, birds. talking about not being able to tell the different between reality and parody, those two responses to the Marx quote, wtf? I can't believe them as either reality or parody.

lol conservapedia hall of mirrors

like a less funny IRE

This is either the funniest parody site ever or, er, I can't even imagine the alternative.

It's not a parody site, but there are likely Colbertist operatives within.

I wonder how they square Obama's adherence to the tenets of Islam and Sharia law with the several instances of him drinking alcohol.

He arrogantly thinks he's above sharia law.

Look, if conservative Christians can believe in stoning homosexuals yet wear garments of mixed wool and cotton fibers, then clearly Muslims can also pick and choose what rules they follow, right?

The thing about these people(rightwing auhoritarian follower-types) is something like what Chris Hedges has talked about in his book _American Fascists_ and what we've discussed previously; ultimately, most of them are victims. Reality and modernity have resulted in them being either left out or left behind. The various ways they were able to handle(or ignore, if need be) daily life have changed or been destroyed in the last half-century. Either they weren't able to cope, or the families & communities they were born into weren't, and so they fall into or choose this unreality. Fred Clark has talked about this for years in detailing American Evangelical Culture and his weekly hilarious eviseceration of the first _Left Behind_ book.

And so we're left with folks who are pretty undeveloped, have never allowed themselves(or been allowed) times of self-reflection, or emotional maturity. And so you get this bullshit infantile, incoherent, and at times superbly comic example of cognitive dissonance in real-time.

But yeah, a lot of them are still fuckheads, and as John Dean and Dr Bob Altermeyer wrote, part of the fraction of America(sorta like your Bee Enn Pee-types, perhaps?) who would happily march us into a brutal, violent theocracy, if not full-on fascism, and think us all better for it.

They are completely shameless...

Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."[30]

The reference number leads to a note which leads to a youtube clip clearly showing the opposite.

Does anyone read this crap apart from us though?

oh plenty do, but mainly for the lolz, i'd suspect

That's kind of what I meant. I don't see anyone actually referencing this stuff.

Critical Thinking in Math

* Is this ever going to happen? It's now been over a year since it was scheduled to start . . . -CSGuy 19:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I've found greater interest in American History right now, so it's taken first priority. It's unfortunate that some who have math skills seem resistant to looking at math critically.--Aschlafly 22:17, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Watch out, the people with math skills are part of the liberal plot too!

I can't stop reading it!

Reasonable Explanations for Atheism

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:

* Moral depravity:

It's not a parody site, but there are likely Colbertist operatives within.

― ᑥ ᑥ ᑥ (libcrypt), Saturday, November 8, 2008 5:33 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm pretty sure at least 25% of these are "Cobertist" operatives

coLbertist

still my all-time favorite conservapedia passage:

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[7] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [8] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.[9]

Man, these retards are retarded.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem