Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Hey let's do a poll!

What do you believe in? Sign your name below anything you have a positive belief in. Feel free to add more (phrenology, alchemy, scientology, what have you), but try to keep snark to a minimum, I'm actually curious about this. DickTurpis 00:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

This needs splitting off into its own page, like that liberal beliefs one a few weeks back. Totnesmartin 14:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

God (Judeo/Christian/Islamic)

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. Unsure (leaning towards No) SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No Totnesmartin
5. No 86.152.83.126 05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT) Matt oblong 05:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No Lardashe
7. Yes, but I'm not a fundy, I swear. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. No.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. Yes _{I think they're all the same} Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)`
10. No --SpinyNorman 12:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. Yes -- And they are the same, Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the same as "The Father" for Christians. Stile4aly 13:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. No. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
13. Yes, I do believe there is a God (but I don't let it melt my brain!) ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ whats up?
14. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Judeo/Christian (not the same as Islamic)

1. Yes --CPAdmin1 09:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. No --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No --SpinyNorman 12:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No, no, no. That's for the trinity - and just who decided to make a splinter group for this? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

just who decided to make a splinter group for this? Someone who knows little about the very religion he claims to practice. PFoster 13:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I knew that. The question was a rhetorical put down. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I knew that. I was just piling on the fact that it's an incredibly stupid thing to do.PFoster 15:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

And what makes you think that I know very little about about the religion I claim to practice? Just because Muslim and Christian beliefs both include Abraham does not make the religions have the same God. --CPAdmin1 20:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Hell of a coincidence don't you think that the cast of characters (Abraham right throught to the angel Gabriel and Jesus himself) is the same in both religions. Also odd that Mohammad believed that he was perfecting and finalizing the word of God that had occurred in the Old Testaments followed by the Jews and the new Testament followed by the Christians. If their prophet says it's the same god as yours then it is.--Damo^Hi 21:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Jesus, I thought CPAdmin1 was one of the reasonable Conservapedians. Turns out not so much. Deal with it boy-tomorrow when you get on your knees at church, you'll be prayin' to ALLAH, too. Any religious scholar who isn't ideologically blind/have her head stuck up her ass/a complete moron would tell you. PFoster 21:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and Jesus Christ is the only Way. The Islamic God is not the same. He does not match the God of the Bible at all. Just because some of the stories are the same does not make them the same God. Only one exists anyway. If you want to start talking about rational positions you have to be fair. You don't believe that one religion is true, and another is false. To you there isn't really a difference. The Idea of God is probably irrational from your point of view. Therefore, if some of the stories line up, and some of the characters are same, then it is the same. Now try looking from my point of view. There is a God. One God, not many. There is one religion that is true (Christianity) and all others are not. If you start from there, it is perfectly rational to conclude that the Islamic God is not the same. --CPAdmin1 22:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The Muslims are worshipping the same god as you, and you as they, full stop. I'm right and you're wrong and there's no point in discussing it further. I'm more intrigued by why you're so eager to obscure that fact but not so eager to obscure the fact that it is also the same god that the Jews worship(you did write "Judeo/Christian (not the same as Islamic))--even when the Muslims make a place for your Christ figure in their cosmogony while the Jews don't.PFoster 22:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Mmm, I dunno PFoster...Muslims accept neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Jesus, both of which are kind of important in the (mainstream) Christian concept of God. I wouldn't call the God of Christianity the same as the God of Islam, nor would I equate it with the God of Judaism. That said, I don't see why a separate category is really necessary, since it seems obvious to me that the intent of the original category was to poll belief in any of the three Abrahamic faiths.--Bayes 22:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

CPAdmin's position is at best ignorant and at worst islamophobic. It's not just that some of the stories overlap, its that the prophet Mohammed believed that he was talking to the Christian/Jewish God. Therefore, the religion he founded uses the same God as the Christian God. Forget it CPAdmin please, for the sake of your own credibility.--Damo^Hi 22:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

What Damo said.PFoster 22:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I will concede the Idea that muslims believe that they are worshiping the same God. This however does not make it the same. God is not based on Abraham. Apart from Jesus Christ, no one can come to God. Sorry if I offend you. --CPAdmin1 23:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Good on you. No I am not easily offended. Remember that I am not saying that the religions are the same, merely that they both have at their head belief in the god that spoke to Abraham and led the Jews out of Egypt. Do you subscribe to the epilepsy theory of Mohammed's visions, or that he just made the whole thing up?--Damo^Hi 23:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I am not denying the fact that both Christianity and Islam believe in a God that spoke to Abraham etc. What I am saying is that that does not make it the same God. The nature of the God of Christianity, and the nature of the God of Islam are extremely at odds to each other, and that is far more important of a point than the fact that both religions point back to Abraham. I believe that Islam is false. It doesn't make a difference to me how Mohammed came up with the Idea. The fact that the story of Abraham already existed explains the fact that it is included in Islam. Much easier to borrow a story from someone else than to make up your own. --CPAdmin1 23:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

1. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

God (other)

1. Yes. Please vote. I'm awfully lonely in this cold, depopulated poll :(Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. no  ^Contribs_Talk
3. Same as above SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Only at times when I think things like "If there was a Big Bang, where did that 1 proton come from?" and "What was before the big bang?". It helps to think that before "nothing" became "everything", there was Bob (or the Great Green Arklseizure or something). It can be neatly plastered over the bits science can't answer yet. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Well, believing doesn't hurt. I'm in! Etc 04:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Yes. Totnesmartin 05:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. No - not the old sky-daddy kind. Matt oblong 05:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. No Lardashe
9. No --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. First define this non-Judeo/Christian "god". After that, no. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. Kinda, more in a "personalization of natural forces" sort of way, but knowing they're not actual people. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. I strongly doubt it, but can't claim to know that as a fact. --SpinyNorman 12:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
13. Maybe if someone named their child "God", but they wouldn't have any significant powers. Candlewick 13:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. Only Robbie Fowler in his prime. All others are false. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
15. Maybe. -- Refugee 20:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
16. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ghosts

1. I reckon that ghosts can be explained by electromagnetic activity. Our brains run on electricity, the earth itsself has an electromagnetic field. When someone dies a vicious death, their brain is working overtime, neurons are firing and the whole brain is active. That leaves an imprint on the electromagnetic field of the earth. Then, when the field is charged (say during a lighting storm - explaining the cliche of ghosts appearing during a stormy night) the imprint is revealed. Also, pyschics cant communicate with the dead but they are more intune with the electric feild than others may be. I am just saying...Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 00:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

   You are kidding, right? Please?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

   I never kid, I am just not that funny. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 07:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

2. no  ^Contribs_Talk
3. Slight possiblity SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. I don't, but I'm not willing to write them off just yet either. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Yes, but not as some remnant of what keeps us alive - more like a recording onto the surroundings. Totnesmartin 05:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No - Someone would have got a convincing picture by now. Matt oblong 05:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. No Lardashe
8. Unsure, leaning towards yes. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. No. I don't believe we have non-corporeal parts which can linger after death.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Doubt it, but I dunno for sure. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. Yes, in the sense of spirits. Not to haunt people, unless they [the spirits of dead people] become demons. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. I think there are phenomena beyond our five senses' ability to directly perceive (if we were born deaf does that mean sounds don't exist around us anyway? I think "Ghosts" are one description of a phenomena we describe in human terms because we don't understand it well enough yet. --SpinyNorman 13:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
13. Only in the sense that human eyes and ears are easily tricked. But there are no real ghosts. Stile4aly 13:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. The only spirits worth believing in are distilled. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
15. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
16. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Astrology

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No--PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No Totnesmartin
4. No - And if it was true I don't believe the nut-balls-goat-spongers who pedal this crap are the least bit qualified to do it. Matt oblong 05:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No Lardashe
6. No, but it does make for good conversation when all else fails. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. NO.
8. Not really, makes good shorthand for talking about personality types, but not for predicting anything. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. Not sure what this is, but I'm pretty sure I hate it. Anything I haven't tried, I instinctively hate. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. My Magic 8-ball says "no" --SpinyNorman 13:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. Astrology is just superstition, but then again we Aries are skeptical. Stile4aly 13:28, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. No. The paperweight on my desk exerts a bigger influence on me than Jupiter. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
13. No. Astrology is a fig-leaf for natural intuition -- the method itself has no merit. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. Yes. Not the "astrology" that you find in the newpaper (today will be your good luck day, etc) not that type of thing, but personal characteristics based on allignment of planets, seasons, and so forth at the time of your birth, I believe there may be something to that. (I realize I'm the lone dissenter, don't all jump on me at once please, lol) --Refugee 21:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
15. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
16. No --CPAdmin1 23:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Numerology

1. To some extent, yes, but only when it comes to my password. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Nope. --SpinyNorman 13:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No. Even though my lucky number is 84309453. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
4. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No. --Refugee 21:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Only when it comes to 22. For obvious reasons... --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Bigfoot

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No (ditto Loch Ness et al) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Probably not. Totnesmartin
4. No. Lardashe
5. No. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Not an impossibility. But I think we would have some better evidence for them if they were real. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. I have a hard enough time buying shoes as it is! --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. I have small feet. So my answer is: sort of. I'm sure there's someone out there with just one big foot. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. I don't discount the possibility of cryptids, after all living coelacanths were only discovered quite recently. However, for any particular specimen: show me the evidence first. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
10. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. No. --Refugee 21:08, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. I had a co-worker who came close, but no. --SpinyNorman 21:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
13. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. is size 15 big enough? --CPAdmin1 23:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Psychic powers

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. This one is complicated... Ask me on my user page if you're really interested, it'll take awhile to explain SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Not explicitly, but there do seem to be cases where people have 'some' kind of power. Like SirChuck said, this one is complicated. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes. Totnesmartin 05:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No Lardashe
6. Yes, but in far fewer people than claim to have them. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. No. I'm with James Randi on this one. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Doubt it. Gimme some evidence and I'll change my mind, though. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. Yes, if you count discernment. My mother has that power and can tell when people are guilty/lying. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Nothing more than conscious or unconscious observation. More Sherlock Holmes than Doris Stokes. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
11. Agree with Genghis. By no means a useless faculty, though. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. Yes, with reservations: A few people, to varying degrees. But never the "psychics" that advertise for money, those are fakes. Well, we don't know everything about the mind-body connection or ourselves yet, do we? --Refugee 21:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
13. See my answer for "Ghosts" --SpinyNorman 22:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The ability to communicate with the dead

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No Totnesmartin 05:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No Lardashe
5. Yes, but only if they're ghosts tapping on the pipes or some such. And then anyone can do it... if the ghost is willing to tap morse code. 8^P --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. The dead cannot communicate: they're dead.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Nope. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Again, to some extent... but only really in dreams. If the spirits willingly contact you. XCandlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. No, they're dead. We have enough difficulty communicating with the living. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
10. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. Same answer as for "Ghosts" --SpinyNorman 22:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Atlantis

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. Yes, but it's under the wrong name. SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. If SirChuck is referring to Crust Displacement, then I'm with him. It's not Atlantis, it's Antarctica. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes, but it's under the wrong sea. Etc 04:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No Totnesmartin 05:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No, but it'd be cool! Lardashe
7. Possibly. Might be under Antarctica. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Not an impossibility, but likely to be mythical. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. Yes, but just a regular island with people on it, probably somewhere else, as above. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Not on this planet, and not with people. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. Who knows? If it was in Antarctica then any remains will have been glaciated away. It's a myth until we have evidence to the contrary. (Crustal displacement theory is interesting though.) Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
13. Nope. Probably a re-telling of a true but small-scale incident that grew into a legend over time, like Flood Myths. --SpinyNorman 22:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
15. Yes, but minus all the science fiction crap. I've heard a fairly good argument that Plato was simply referring to this, and got his numbers wrong because of Greco-Egyptian numerical confusion. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Faeries

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No (and not even Conan-Doyle can convince me) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Sadly, the bottom of my garden contains mostly slugs. Totnesmartin 05:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No Lardashe
5. I Do Believe in Faries! I Do Believe in Faries! *Claps Hands.* --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. And Doreen Virtue, "PhD", makes my blood boil. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Nope. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. The tooth faerie.. some fat guy with a hairy chest prancing around in your room stealing the virginity of your baby teeth? Nope. Lies! Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Yes. I was in New Orleans during a Gay Pride parade. No. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
11. No. (Bought the damn book anyway when I was a teen, though)--SpinyNorman 22:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Witches (not Wiccans)

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. I believe in the power of belief in witchcraft, which also has nothing to do with Wicca (strange distinction made in the heading, I think.) There are people who believe they are witches, or witchdoctors, or sangomas, or tonton macoute (sp?) and there are people who believe in the powers of those people and that is what gives them their power. make sense? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. If you mean cackling old women flying around on broomsticks and turning people into frogs, then no. If you mean non-cackling old women making herbal remedies and potions which may or may not work, then yes, I've got some on my phone. Totnesmartin 05:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No. Regardless of the existence of those who claim themselves witches, they hold no real power that would make them 'witches' Lardashe
5. Um... no. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. There are plenty of people claiming to be, but I don't believe that any of them have any magical powers, or that their spells and potions have any effect other than the placebo effect. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Nope. I've never seen anyone with enough power to hex a dandelion (mind you, dandelions are pretty tenacious buggers). --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Salem Witch Trials. Modern day? Communists. Capitalism mutates into Communism.. umm, no I don't believe in spells. But Sabrina was rather cute. So was Paige_{from Charmed}

   But, I'm pretty sure it says in the Bible somewhere about practicing witchcraft and satanic rituals. So, umm, magic might exist... uhh. I have to read more.. haha. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

9. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Nothing beyond the application of suggestion. Witchcraft is mainly in the minds of others. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
11. No. --SpinyNorman 22:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

UFOs

1. If by this you mean "life from other planets that might conceivably have swung within eyeball distance of the Earth at some point in history" PFoster 00:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. no  ^Contribs_Talk
3. If you mean aliens, probably not. But there are many unidentified objects still awaiting explanation SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. I find it hard to believe that given the size of this universe, we are alone, but I find it equally hard to believe that they would be so technologically far ahead of us. So, if the question is UFOs only, then no. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. There is some kind of atmospheric phenomenon which science hasn't got round to explaining yet (and probably is shy of looking at because of all the crankery) - no evidence that it's aliens from Zeta Reticuli though. Totnesmartin 05:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No - though in the strictest sense of the acronym, yes. In the sense of aliens visiting our planet, no. Lardashe
7. Maybe. Call me if they land. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Once again, it's a possibility. But the manner in which they get reported is so similar to the reporting of fairies and ghosts that I don't believe aliens have visited us yet. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. Doubtful, but within the outer range of possibility. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Weather balloons or people on drugs. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. In the sense of green-skinned alens in flying-saucers, no. Unexplained aerial phenomena? Possibly. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
13. UFO's = Unidentified Flying Objects? Those are reported all the time, I've seen some myself.. hey, look at that thing in the sky, what is that? :p lol. So yes. But probably not anything from another planet - just miscellaneous space debris/meteorite/unknown military aircraft testing, etc... --Refugee 21:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. Possible, but not in the flying-saucer sense. I believe that there's intelligent life out there besides us, but if any happened upon us by chance they'd be observing without revealing themselves. --SpinyNorman 22:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
15. No. Anal probes, disecting cows and doodling in cornfields? If life is ever found from other planets im sure it's something weird but to fly lightyears to do that... Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
16. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. I am pretty sure that there are objects that are (were) flying that are (were) unidentified. therefore Yes. If you mean Alien Life/Flying Saucers, No. --CPAdmin1 23:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Spring Heeled Jack (not the ska band)

1. Much like the Monkey Man of India, spring heel jack was probably the result of hysteria Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 00:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean you're not voting for it being true? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

1. No, there were murders (I think) and thy were around the time of JtR (again, I think) so witness's descriptions were probably blown up out of proportion. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Yes, it was the work of a prctical joker (the Marquis of Waterford IIRC). Totnesmartin 05:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Huh? --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Never heard of it. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Definitely not. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Who? Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. No. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. No. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}
9. Nope. --SpinyNorman 22:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. No. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

That there is something "paranormal"

It cannot be explained by science (or has not been adequately explained) (you should probably clarify what you actually believe here; interpret as you will)

1. I'm sort of open to this, though I can't say I believe in anything specifically. I have seen some things I am at a loss to explain. DickTurpis 00:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Dark matter. (Note: that would be "isn't" rather than "cannot be explained by science...) Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Several things, but a more accurate explanation is cannot be verified by science for the moment) SirChuckB^{That is all} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. There is still much that isn't explained by science (go back to my Big Bang musings), but that doesn't imply I'll immediately substitute woo for that. Science will get there eventually - flight was still woo 150 years ago. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. I've had personal experience of a poltergeist, so i find it hard to dismiss witness evidence if it's consistent, independent and honestly reported. This fails scientic method, and there's the danger of woo, but there seems to be stuff that science hasn't got to yet, and might not in our lifetimes. Totnesmartin 05:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. That which cannot be explained just can't be explained yet. Lardashe
7. I'm sure there's SOMETHING. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. You'd need to define "paranormal" first. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. Too vague a question, sorry. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Yes, Kels answered it. This question is too paranormal. Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
11. If it can be shown to be real and repeatable, and cannot be explained by science then there just hasn't been enough research. If there's no evidence other than eye-witness reports and which cannot be explained away by suggestibility then it's woo. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

    You're all right. This is way too vague. Sorry. Couldn't really capture what I was going for. DickTurpis 16:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

12. Same answer as for "Ghosts". --SpinyNorman 22:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
13. Allso think that this is too vague to answer. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Love

1. yes   ^Contribs_Talk
2. Yay! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 01:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT
3. Well, yeah, but this one isn't terribly controversial (disregarding Assfly's "atheistic substitution for love" bullshit or whatever it was). I also believe in sandwiches, but I'm not going to create an entry for that. Oh, and should we be numbering these if people are going to post "no"? I will throw off the count and make the final numbers meaningless. DickTurpis 02:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes. But what is it doing in such a list as this?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Wee! This is much more fun than the other things. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Love is 40 years' of marriage. Or 3 minutes of squelching noises. Your call. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Yes - as I can't disagree with Susan. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 04:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Yes! Totnesmartin 05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. I have the most beautiful girlfriend. Love. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 07:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Yes. But it's not as mystical as it's been made out to be. Lardashe
11. Yes, but don't confuse passion for love. The fires of passion dim in time, but the embers of love, well tended will continue to keep you warm. God that's cheesy... did I lift that from someplace? I can't have just made that up. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. But of course! --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
13. Hell, yeah! --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
14. (see the above answer from Kels) Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
15. No. It's either just another word for lust or it's friendship taken to extremes. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
16. Yes --CPAdmin1 20:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
17. Yes, and I'm thankful every day for being able to say that. --SpinyNorman 22:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
18. Nope, it's just a biological reaction that occurs to make sure our genes get passed on. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ whats up?
19. Mayby, debends how one defines it. Timppeli 22:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
20. "Is that the love between a man and a woman, or the love of a man for a fine Cuban cigar?" PFoster 23:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Bahahahaha, thanks Dr. Hibbert! Ace McWicked^{Substansive comments only} 23:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Homer Simpson

1. The Simpsons is a reality show, everyone knows that. Etc 05:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. I don't believe anything I see on television, but I do believe DickTurpis has got bored by now Totnesmartin 05:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Northern Kentucky is where they live... I think they're dead by now though. Candlewick 22:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

DickTurpis has got bored by now

1. No. Etc 09:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Me too. I'd rather discuss any of the above than merely have us all state our opinions. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Homer lives in the land of erotic cakes. --Kels 09:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Who? Candlewick 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Not bored so much as wondering what part of "Sign your name below anything you have a positive belief in" is so hard to understand. DickTurpis 16:28, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

You expect us lot to do as we're told? We see a debate and dive in. Instructions are for wimps! Totnesmartin 16:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

None of the above

(note:Love added afte Damo's contrib)

1. --Damo^Hi 00:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
   1. Well I do believe in love, not that I think there is anything intrinsically mysterious about it. I imagine it can be explained scientifically through chemical reactions etc.
2. ħuman

Poll saturation

This place is turning into PollWiki - every day hour a new one - boring!   ^Contribs_Talk 02:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Disagree

1. You can't fight satire. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 02:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Robin Hood

1. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 05:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wrong! It's actually Sir Angus of the Prune disguised as Robin Hood disguised as Sir Angus of the Prune. --JeevesMkII 07:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Historical Quote

Doesn't this quote off the front page "Look at nature, work independently, and solve your own problems." sort of fly in the face of fundie belief? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 01:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not at all. "Look at nature (i.e. the Bible, the natural word of God), work independently (study your Bible in an independent manner) and solve your own problems (through the study of Bible and prayer)" Where's the issue with that? DickTurpis 01:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fundamentalism grew out of the Protestant idea of personal interpretation of the Bible, so it's reasonable to see it there. Totnesmartin 05:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(Look at nature)+(work independently)+(solve your own problems)=genius!--Antifly 13:08, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Lenski statistics

Andy keeps complaining about combining different samples: "The studies were not combined in a logical manner". I'm blocked, but has anyone asked over there if he's read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used (pdf here)? And if he has had read it, which bit exactly does he think is wrong? alt 06:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It probably was asked. It goes in the big pile of statistical questions Andy has ignored. It's pretty obvious that he just doesn't really understand the statistics involved; he was fed his "objections" by another CP user, he didn't think of them himself.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It is blatantly obvious to everyone, including the sysops and other sympathetic editors. And they all read here, so it's not like they don't know about it. And not one of them has the balls to say anything. HELLO CHAPS! THE EMPEROR IS PARADING UP AND DOWN THE INTERNET WITH NO CLOTHES ON!!! 121.44.9.208 08:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly is a tit. Blount et al. did run the numbers with and without weighting for total number of Cit+ mutants recovered in each experiment. Maybe Schlafly is complaining about not applying weighting for the number of replicates run. But had Andy run the numbers and used weighting for the number of replicates, he would have found that p < 0.05, meaning that the results remain statistically significant. That is the worst case calculation and isn't necessarily the correct one because the first experiment involved multiple generations and more cells overall. The reference Blount et al. used for the calculation is MC Whitlock's paper (J. Evol. Biol. 18(2005) pp1368-1373). The weighted Z-method calculation is described on p1369 of that reference. Here's the formula: weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))

Expt#	p-value	z-score	#Cit+ muts	#replicates
1	0.0085	2.387	4	72
2	0.0007	3.195	5	340
3	0.0823	1.390	8	2800

Applying the formula described above..

Weighting	Z transformed	p
Equal	4.025	<0.001
By total Cit+	3.576	<0.001
By total replicates	1.825	0.034

Someone please check my calculations (peer review!) -- I used the single-ended, z-score/p-value conversion applet found here to change p-values to z-scores (my stats books are at work). Otherwise, feel free to disseminate this data without attribution.--Neon 11:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

User:Neon, it should be clear to anyone who knows how to read that many lies can be told with "statistics", and that is is one of the favorite tactics of liberals, especially professors. The numbers clearly do not support Lenski's conclusions, and to say otherwise is to engage in deceit. Godspeed.-- -PalMD ^{--Unhand me, scoundrel!} 12:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. That must be why Andy is so proud of having taken 'advanced statistical courses' in school.--Neon 12:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I think you mean having 'excelled in advanced statistics courses' in school.--Antifly 13:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Course programs:

• Basic statistical course: statistics theory, statistical methods
• Advanced statistical course: how Liberals tell lies with "statistics" ( Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 13:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT) )

Neon! That maths has been stolen by me. Thank you very, very, much.--Toffeeman 15:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Doesn't matter if you did, Andy doesn't understand stats anyway. --Kels 17:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ooh, rearguarded! --Kels 17:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

And a nice little "go away" from Andy, late as normal --BoredCPer 17:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Rearguarded, and then non-sensical reply that I can't repsond to posted! Bastards. What a pathetic little shit Andy is that he has to move someone out of the way as just as soon as they utilise someone elses (Neon's) expertise to show that he is wrong!--Toffeeman 17:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

[unindent]Actually, it's Andy's unsupported assertion that the number of replicates are the 'proper' means of applying weights. In reality, that's incorrect. The p-values for each experiment were calculated using the Monte-Carlo resampling tests based on the number and distribution of of Cit+ mutants, not the number of replicates. Thus if one if going to weight results in a Z-transform, the number of Cit+ mutants collected per experiment is the better 'weight'. The results are indeed significant, no matter how one slices it.--Neon 20:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The reality of the situation is that we need not spend a lot time debating and proving Andy is wrong because, well, HE IS SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG! Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 20:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd really like to a slickly-formatted presentation of that crazy talk page's "evolution". Andy has deleted so much of it, so often... Perhaps a side-by-side, with all deleted stuff on the right, with difflinks, timing, edit comment by teh assfly, etc.? With what "survived" on the left? In essence, an easier way for someone to see Andy's arrogant stupidity without clicking through the diffs on their own? Ideas for presentation? Hmmm. How about making all deleted sections in white text (or black background)? ħuman 21:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

RJJensen

RJJensen - not to be confused with AKjeldsen - is becoming too good a contributor. In the very remote case of other as good contributors coming on board, Conservapedia could regain some credibility, and we don't want it, do we? So should we convince RJJensen to abandon the sinking ship? Other suggestions? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 06:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wasnt RJensen roughed up at citizendom and found his way to CP? Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!}

Something along those lines - we received a request not to harass him a while back. I haven't checked his work (it falls out of my area of expertise) but he seems to be concentrating mostly on history - not sure with how much bias though. I'm sure Bugler will latch on to him soon enough. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Even if he is is the last man standing, still seriously trying to build an encyclopedia, it's just a matter of time before he steps on one of Andy's crazy-toes. Etc 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Like AKjeldsen and PalMD, this genuine expert will give up in disgust after arguing with a sysop who knows nothing of the subject but will block him anyway. He may then come here, he may not. I give it 'til Christmas. Totnesmartin 15:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much what I was going to say. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It's already started. Though, calling Pinyin the communist version, and Bugler objecting, is almost interesting in and of itself. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Melisande

WIGOs like that make me wish I could vote more than once... Nice job, PJR! ħuman 17:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I wish I could vote twice as well, though I wish even more I knew what the WIGO is talking about. Could someone give me a clue (in short, simple words - clearly I am not that bright).--Damo^Hi 18:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Open the two images, and read the first letter of each article that is edited, in a vertical row. Someone pulled a similar exploit a week or so ago. What PJR did is delete and recreate certain of the articles (or deleted the revision?), which makes those "contributions" go away. So he "edited" the "message" to have a new, pro-CP meaning. ħuman 18:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, smart work PJR. You're involved with the wrong site though - your playful sense of humour would work much better over here. DogP 18:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Those exploits are like writing your name in the dust on the top of a cupboard. Only someone who knows it's there is going to have a look. So what tipped PJR off to this? Did someone fess up over here that I missed? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Did any one see that item on the BBC site about testing near-death out-of-body experiences by putting pictures on high shelves in hospital operating theatres?

But Genghis, think of the time people do spend hunting for things that may or may not be there ("easter eggs" for example). Also, since it was done once, people know they "might" be there - and checking a user's contribution list is a common sysop defensive tactic on a wiki under siege, as CP is. ħuman 21:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

They spend so much time on this BS, it's a miracle they have any time to write more articles on Liberals and Psoriasis, or how Atheism is ruining the cotton crop. --Gulik 23:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice work PJR. You really should stop hanging around with those bums over there.Damo^Hi 19:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Witty yes but he is still a deluded god botherer. Let us not forget he can still be a goon. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 19:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ken (again)

I had always wondered how he was going to cope with his article of the year once we hit 01/01/2009. Now we know that he's just going to ignore it. What a self-important little prick he is. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll lay 20 that says nobody but Ken knew that was going up before he did it. --Kels 19:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Plus, the "A.D." goes before the year, not after. So there!--WJThomas 19:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It really shows Andys level of oversight and control over his own blog. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 20:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

That's one thing that stuff like this really highlights. The crazier sysops over there (Conservative, Koward, Croc o' Shite, JM, etc.) are a bunch of spoiled little divas who threaten to leave at the least sign that anyone might disagree with them and get away with it. It only takes a suggestion of a threat to have them on the fainting couch with an attack of the vapours, and Andy's stuck constantly catering to their wishes (or more usual, turning a blind eye to their abuses) lest he lose them. But which of them is actually likely to leave a forum that actually gives them that much voice? And how much is he likely to lose if they do go? Not much, I'll bet. --Kels 21:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The man (if indeed Andy is a "man") is completely useless. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 21:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The word you're searching for is "impotent". --Kels 21:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

No no, I think you mean "ignorant". "Stupid" would also work. DogP 21:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Demarcation redux

Since the demarcation discussion seems to have been archived I will start a new section. There was a lot of feedback about how to handle the "Best of" demarcation point. I think we might be going about this completely the wrong way. Rather than pasting in entries on a page that based on an arbitrary cut off I think we should have a tool that displays WIGO entries based on what ever criteria a user wants. I have mocked up a prototype here. It displays all WIGO items sorted by vote totals, and gives the option of defining a "cutoff" value for total votes to display. I think something like this combined with "date" options and other sorting options could complete replace the current "best of" system. It would also be much more compatible with the other WIGOs, and better connect all the infrastructure together and offer a clearer consequence for voting up or down. tmtoulouse ^plague 19:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

"What", I frequently ask myself, "would we EVER do without you?" Awesome Trent, that seems like a really smart solution. Can the design be improved a little? It's a bit, er. boxy. DogP 21:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Rant from a jerk

I know this is just going to be another rant from an impotent jerk which will also be followed by this community replying with terms such as "What else is new?" etc etc. But I rant nonetheless. This piece of ground breaking journalism, posted on CP's main page, just goes to show the sheer hipocracy of the Christian Right. Call Obama a muslim, say he is not a real christian and accuse liberals of being godless BUT DONT YOU FUCKING DARE COMMENT ON PALIN YOU GODLESS SCUM!!! Fucking assholes. Ace McWicked^{Substansive comments only} 23:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll never understand why these twits like Palin so much. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:09, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I must feel good going in the election with someone who has seen Russia from her home state. She'll keep an eye on them. Ace McWicked^{Substansive comments only} 00:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

It's very easy to see why they like her. She's Republican, and she's a candidate. That's pretty much it. If she wasn't either, they wouldn't give a rat's behind about her. But since she is, she must be praised as the Second Coming and then some. Seriously, remember Andy's original article CP had for Grampy McSame, before he got nominated? Not so nice to the old fellah. Contrast it to the current version, where he's practically on the waiting list to be Sainted. --Kels 00:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Also, "the base" (that's English for "al Queda", by the way) love her because she is "one of us" - Andy in lipstick. The Second Coming of, if not the jebus baby, at least Phyllis Schlafly, grand mere. ħuman 00:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I'm sorry. I saw "rant from a jerk" and came here expecting to find something by Jeeves. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

New Mainpage headline

Just seeing the most recent headline and I don't understand it. Who are the "honest democratic citizens" supposed to be, and what is supposed to happen when they "breakaway from the liberal party's influence." Are they saying that the Democratic party is forcing people to be racist, or that the "honest" members should admit their prejudices and become Republicans? And why waste the opportunity to bash Obama? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)