Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,283 Year: 5,540/9,624 Month: 565/323 Week: 62/143 Day: 5/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 167 (387921)
03-03-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
03-03-2007 11:13 AM


christian fundamentalism ≠ all conservatives
http://www.conservapedia.com/Mutations
quote:
Mutations are changes in the genetic code caused by copying errors, or by external factors such as solar radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemicals. Mutations are sometimes the cause of disease, such as cancer or Down's Syndrome (which is the result of an extreme mutation which causes an extra chromosome to be present). Evolutionists claim that heritable mutations produce genetic variety, upon which natural selection acts. However, mutations can only decrease information, never increase it.[1]
This isn't conservative, it is just christian creationist fundamentalism - pretending to represent all conservatives.
A fundamental logical error.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 11:13 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 6:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 03-04-2007 12:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 167 (387949)
03-03-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
03-03-2007 5:41 PM


Re: As mad as a screaming weasel on a pogo-stick
yes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 5:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 167 (387962)
03-03-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tusko
03-03-2007 6:57 PM


Re: As mad as a screaming weasel on a pogo-stick
... how can they say that these people aren't true Christians (or conservatives) without even batting an eyelid?
Especially when they use the numbers of christians and conservatives to claim that their position is a majority position.
This of course combines two logical fallacies: the part for the whole and the argument from popularity
Not that this stops screaming weasels on pogo sticks ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 6:57 PM Tusko has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 167 (387975)
03-03-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Straggler
03-03-2007 7:35 PM


Re: Christian Cult of Ignorance
Because the both benefit from the ignorance of their followers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 7:35 PM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 167 (388018)
03-04-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jaderis
03-04-2007 2:08 AM


earth to conservapedia ... earth to conservapedia ...
Part of the entry on {Earth}:
quote:
Estimates by non-creationist geologists of the age of the Earth have varied over the years; currently, most scientists believe the age of the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years. In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [1]
Bible scholars have also estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by R. B. Knox, James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh (usually referred to as Archbishop Ussher) in a book called Annals of the World, in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian Benjamin Warfield on the issue. [2] However, James Barr, regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, wrote in 1984 the following: " . probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: . the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" [3]
Ancient age "refuted" by a single quote mine. YEC age "bolstered" by the argument from authority - alone.
Scientific illiteracy at it's worst.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jaderis, posted 03-04-2007 2:08 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 167 (388020)
03-04-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
03-04-2007 7:56 AM


ring around the tree rings
What's funny about that, I hear you ask? What's funny is that that's the entire article.
This is what it says about tree rings:
quote:
You searched for tree rings
There is no page titled "tree rings". You can create this page.
Page text matches
1. Dendrochronology (223 bytes)
1: ... of counting tree rings to determine the age of a tree.
Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With G...
2. As You Like It (133,473 bytes)
1247: Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
1467: But, poor old man, thou prunest a rotten tree,
1709: Under the greenwood tree
1765: duke will drink under this tree. He hath been all
2226: O Rosalind! these trees shall be my books

and clicking on Dendrochronology gives (in toto):
quote:
The process of counting tree rings to determine the age of a tree.[1]
References
1. ‘ Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000
Only one reference? And they didn't even cite Don Batten's article?
To say nothing of the FACT that "Dendrochronology" is about more than just the age of the tree in question (hence the inclusion of the "-chronology" root):
den·dro·chro·nol·o·gy -noun: 4 definitions:
Definition #1:
the science dealing with the study of the annual rings of trees in determining the dates and chronological order of past events.
Definition #2:
The study of climate changes and past events by comparing the successive annual growth rings of trees or old timber.
Definition #3:
"dating by tree rings," 1928, from dendro- (see dendrite) + chronology.
Definition #4:
The study of growth rings in trees for the purpose of analyzing past climate conditions or determining the dates of past events. Because trees grow more slowly in periods of drought or other environmental stress than they do under more favorable conditions, the size of the rings they produce varies. Analyzing the pattern of a tree's rings provides information about the environmental changes that took place during the period in which it was growing. Matching the pattern in trees whose age is known to the pattern in wood found at an archaeological site can establish the age at which the wood was cut and thus the approximate date of the site. By comparing living trees with old lumber and finding overlapping ring patterns, scientists have established chronological records for some species that go back as far as 9,000 years.
That last one from The American Heritage Science Dictionary.
Not ONE of the definitions says it is only about seeing how old the tree itself was.
Sad when an "encyclopedia" can't even get the definition correct eh?
Sad when you get more information from a definition than you do from an "encyclopedia" when they could easily just use the definition in the first place.
Illiteracy is like that.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 167 (388374)
03-05-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Jack
03-05-2007 1:53 PM


Moon Orbit
At the moment, yes, it's moving further from the earth. That will not last forever.
The moon is currently being accelerated in it's orbit by the tidal bulges of the earth - these rotate with the spin of the earth ahead of the moon, thus the gravity from these bulges attract the moon ahead of it's position.
This also means that the moon's gravity acting on these bulges is slowing the spin of the earth about it's axis (thus maintaining rotational inertia).
The evidence for this is recorded in daily growth rings within annual growth rings of certain ancient corals (dated by radiometric dating). In the Devonian Period the year was about 400 days of ~365*24/400 = 21.9 current hrs and in the Pennsylvanian Period the year was about 390 days ~365*24/390 = 22.5 current hrs.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html
quote:
The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400,...
A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385.
This could eventually reach an equilibrium point where the orbital period of the moon matches the rotational period of the earth. It could also keep going - I'd need an astrophysics maven to calculate the relative possibilities.
Personally I do not think that it would reach a point and then start collapsing back into the earth, but I could be wrong. It could well be at the point where the sun has expanded close enough to the earths orbit that solar effects start to take over.
Enjoy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box. RAZD's quality control seems to be really on the skids.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2007 1:53 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2007 8:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Jon, posted 03-05-2007 10:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 167 (388383)
03-05-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
03-03-2007 11:13 AM


Love the new avatar
Some more screaming weasel pogo shtick:
Conservapedia:
LiberalThe term "liberal" comes from the aftermath of the French Revolution, where it meant someone who advocated more powerful elected assemblies.
"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.
The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Examples of liberal beliefs include:
* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.[1]
An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":[2]
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
So liberals did not exist before the french revolution?
They cite Dictionary.com as a reference but it says:
lib·er·al - adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
-noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Let's not mention that the American Revolution was a Liberal program ... the Conservatives were the Tories.
ConservativeA conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.[1]
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support free enterprise and oppose inflation. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.
Every 20-60 years a conservative is elected president of the United States. Examples include:
George Washington
James Monroe
Grover Cleveland
Warren G. Harding
Ronald Reagan
That's it? Boy that's a majority position alrighty eh?
Of course giving gays equal opportunity to get married is not included ...
They do NOT reference Dictionary.com which says:
con·serv·a·tive - adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
-noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.
Nothing there about government size (which is blown out of the water by the current administration, which built on both Bush I and Regan government growth).
The conservapedia entries do not bear any resemblance to dictionary.com definitions.
By contrast the "biased" wikipedia entries are (in part ... just the first parts ...):
(Liberal switched to Liberalism)
LiberalLiberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]
Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect what they perceive to be natural rights, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are rejected as interference by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.
and (Conservative switched to Conservatism)
ConservativeConservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term derives from the Latin, conservre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.
Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.”[1] Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism.”[2]
Conservatism has not produced, nor does it tend to produce systematic treatises like Hobbes’ Leviathan or Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Consequently, what it means to be a conservative today is frequently the subject of debate and a topic muddied by association with various (and often opposing) ideologies or political parties.
Although political thought, from its beginnings, contains many strains that can be retrospectively labeled conservative, it was not until the Age of Reason, and in particular the reaction to events surrounding the French Revolution of 1789, that conservatism began to rise as a distinct attitude or train of thought. Many suggest an earlier rise of a conservative disposition, in the wake of the Reformation, specifically in the works of influential Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker - emphasizing moderation in the political balancing of interests towards the goals of social harmony and common good. But it was not until Edmund Burke’s polemic - Reflections on the Revolution in France - that conservatism gained its most influential statement of views.
These entries DO closely match the dictionary.com definitions.
And it looks like "Conservatism" got it's start with the French Revolution .... ???
LOL.
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link per moose request

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 11:13 AM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-05-2007 9:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 167 (389084)
03-10-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Jon
03-05-2007 10:46 PM


Re: Moon Orbit
The moon causes the tides - bulges in both water and solid mass of the earth (the "solid" part floating on the molten core, and being relatively hard to measure). The spin of the earth moves these ahead of the alignment with the moon causing the slight pull accelerating it in it's orbit.
For every action there is a reaction eh?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Jon, posted 03-05-2007 10:46 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Chiroptera, posted 03-10-2007 4:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 157 of 167 (669152)
07-27-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by xongsmith
07-27-2012 12:48 PM


Re: If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that system.
I thought THE DAILY SHOW did the best review of it: if he had said "those" instead of "that" it would more clearly show he was referring to the bridges, roads, etc.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by xongsmith, posted 07-27-2012 12:48 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024