So liberals did not exist before the french revolution?
They cite Dictionary.com as a reference but it says:
Let's not mention that the American Revolution was a Liberal program ... the Conservatives were the Tories.
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:
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)
and (Conservative switched to Conservatism)
These entries DO closely match the dictionary.com definitions.
And it looks like "Conservatism" got it's start with the French Revolution .... ???
The sun is a star, a giant ball of flaming gas. It provides the Earth with light and heat. In Christian theology, God created the sun on the first day of Creation. [1]
References ‘ Genesis 1
---
Oh yeah?
Damn, don't these people even read the Bible?
---
I notice that they now have 38 times more "information" on Hillary Clinton than on Iraq. This tells you everything you need to know about conservatives.
If you're able to engage some of its editors in discussion I'd like to see the results of that (if you want.)
Yeah sure. So far, no answer. I wonder how often they come around. Or they may think I'm trolling. Who knows...
I'm just making a prediction about the sort of person who goes over to create a "conservative wikipedia" simply to lock his ideological counterparts out of the debate.
The second you use it as a reference the debate is over because its too suspect as being a biased source. Its kind of like creationists using AiG or evo's using TO.
He's written about it pretty extensively. You'll notice that he wasn't one of the CPAC speakers this year; hasn't been on the panel for a while, I think.
I have no idea who was at CPAC this year, save Malkin and Horowitz.
"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
Its kind of like creationists using AiG or evo's using TO.
I guess I don't understand that. I've never seen TO proven wrong about anything, and the real treasure is that they have a bibliography for every single article.
They can't be labeled suspect simply because they promote the scientific consensus of evolution. That is, after all, the scientific consensus.
I notice that they now have 38 times more "information" on Hillary Clinton than on Iraq. This tells you everything you need to know about conservatives.
I tried "England", "God", "Jesus", "sex" (nothing there) and "homosexuality". Homosexuality had more than all the other four combined! They're weird!
Tidal forces are gravitational. You can't have one body pulling on another with gravity without having the second body also pulling on the other.
As I understand it the behaviour of the moon can be calculated very accurately with newtonian mechanics - there is no mystery.
Right, I knew all that, I was into ameture astronomy for many years. What I wasn't sure of was the claim by conservapedia. They actually claim that the tidal forces affect the moon, not the other way around? That's something you learn in like second or third grade.
basically, and really simplisticly (and so, possible gross misrepresentations), tides are caused by an uneven gravitational field distribution. That uneven distribution is called a "tidal force".
ABE: you're not being poed again. What causes tides on our planet caused Shoemaker-Levy (thanks chiroptera for the correction) to be ripped apart by jupiter. You just have a misunderstanding.
(now then, I seem to remember a certain person telling another certain person to stay out of another certain thread because the 2nd person knew squat. Does the 1st person want to make an apology to the 2nd person (seeing as how 1st person asked questions that proved his ignorance here, which was used to disqualify the 2nd person from participating in the other thread)?
edit: sorry, moose, i think i was writting this post when you posted the warning to stop.
i had to back-track to this post from a few confusing (and confused) posts. you seem to be strangely suffering from the same misconceptions the article you cite does.
but it also claims that tides cause moon "buldges"
the article you cited has:
quote:The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design.
in other words, "god did it." not tides. further, they don't seem to understand tidal forces.
quote:As to the Moon, the tidal forces on the Earth cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.
this implies to me that they are thinking scientists mean the changing hieght of sea level caused the moon's deformation. they don't understand the relationship or definitions, and so they uses phrases like this. and so do you. but they seem to fail to grasp that the moon is actually the cause of tides on earth, and that two bodies attract each other with gravity. the moon deforms the earth's oceans. the earth would similarly deform the moon if it were liquid. and considering that the moon does not have a core, we then have a fairly good explanation for the moon's shape: it was once liquid, specifically formed from the earth's mantle.
and that tidal forces on Earth could actually have broken the moon into pieces if it ever got too close!
tidal force is the secondary effect of gravity between two bodies. it's responsible for the earth's tides. "tidal forces on earth" is kind of an odd phrase. the moon exerts a tidal force on the earth (and vice versa). but it would be the tidal force OF the earth ON the moon that would (hypothetically) break up the moon.
not that i'm totally sure that's even possible. and that "150,000 miles" sounds rather familiar. and it's rather interesting that they believe tidal forces are strong enough to break up the moon, but not strong enough to change its shape a little.
™ Version 4.2
