Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Gandalf

2007-12-09T22:48:19Z

All Fish Welcome:

'''Gandalf''' was a [[wizard]] in ''[[The Hobbit]]'' and ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. To the Elves and Men of Gondor he was known as Mithrandir, the Grey Pilgrim. "To the east he goes not." At the conclusion of the War of the Ring he accompanied [[Frodo Baggins|Frodo]], [[Bilbo Baggins|Bilbo]], [[Elrond]], and [[Galadriel]] on a sea voyage to the Undying Lands in the west.

He is one of the five Istari, angelic spirits sent by the Lords of the West in human form to motivate the inhabitants of Middle-earth to resist the evil of [[Sauron]]. In the West he was the Maia known as Olorin, and once served the Vala Manwe.

[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Elrond

2007-12-09T22:47:16Z

All Fish Welcome:

'''Elrond''', a half-elf, was master of [[Rivendell]] in ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. His daughter was betrothed to his ward, [[Aragorn]], whom he sent on many journeys of knight-errantry. Elrond presided over the council which chose the [[Fellowship of the Ring]] and assigned [[Frodo]] the quest of [[Mordor]].

[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Éowyn

2007-12-09T22:45:12Z

All Fish Welcome:

'''Eowyn''' is the niece of King [[Theoden]] in ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. It was she who killed the [[black riders|Witch-King of Angmar]] and his fell beast during the Battle of Pelennor Field. Her femininity was an advantage in the clash, as it had been prophesied that no man could kill Angmar. She was helped by [[Merry]], who struck the Witch-King with a blade forged by the men of Westernesse and enchanted for use against the Angmar.

[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Talk:Bible

2007-09-18T13:59:04Z

All Fish Welcome:

{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Changes Needed ==
The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:
* Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
* The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
* Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
* KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
* KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
* KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
* KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
* KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang theory

2007-09-18T13:19:28Z

All Fish Welcome: Fixing age of universe and other minor things

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==
The [[starlight problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang Theory. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> The [[creation science]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] has stated the following regarding the starlight problem for the Big Bang Theory and the work of [[Charles W. Misner]] is cited who published his work in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]'':
{{cquote|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref>}}

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-08-08T16:10:55Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

::"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Bohemian Grove

2007-07-28T03:59:56Z

All Fish Welcome: cleanup

'''The Bohemian Grove''' is a 2700 acre private camp, located within the Redwood Forest, in Monte Rio, [[California]], near Napa. It contains accommodations for 2000 people to "camp" in luxury. It is owned by the Bohemian Club. The Bohemian Club is a private, all male club, which is headquartered in [[San Francisco]]. It was formed in 1872.

The Club has evolved into an association of rich and powerful men, mostly from the United States. Some artists are allowed to join because of their social status and entertainment value. The membership list has included every Republican U.S. president (as well as many Democrats such as [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Lyndon Johnson]]) since 1923, many cabinet members, and directors & CEO's of the largest corporations, including major financial institutions. <ref>Jones Report[[http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/210607_bg.html]]</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category: Culture]]

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2007-07-28T03:57:31Z

All Fish Welcome:

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Punk

2007-07-22T19:15:40Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Punk Culture */ made spelling conform

'''Punk music''' originated in the late 1970s, primarily as a response to the cultural sterility of [[progressive rock]], in the [[United Kingdom]] with bands such as the [[Sex Pistols]], [[The Clash]] and [[The Buzzcocks]]. It quickly spread to the [[USA]] where bands such as [[The Ramones]] helped punk to continue to rise in popularity.

==Musicality==

Punk is charactarised by up-tempo guitar/bass arrangements. The lyrics can be concerned with any topic, generally, but are almost always written with a 1-2, 1-2 rhyme scheme. By design, the songs are usually structured to be very simplistic rock songs of the 1-4-5 chord progression variety.

==Dancing==

Various methods of dancing to it have emerged, such as skanking and pogo-ing. Punk-style dance is typically designed to be synasthesically expressive of an emotion, not of a particular representational style, such as a jitterbug.

==Punk Culture==

Punks typically distinguish themselves from others with their unmistakable appearances. This has included things such as Mohawk hairstyles, tight pants, studded leather jackets, bullet belts, combat boots, etc. Clothing and hairstyles vary widely throughout the punk scene, and often particular outfits denote particular strains of punk or core-beliefs. Most true punks however will claim that the punk subculture is more based on the idea of non-conformity.

==Sub-Genres==

* [[hardcore]]
* [[psychobilly]]
* [[pop-punk]]
* [[crust]]
* [[emo]]

== Notable Punk bands ==

=== United Kingdom===
* [[Poison Girls]]
* [[Subhumans]]
* [[Crass]]
* [[Sex Pistols]]
* [[The Buzzcocks]]
* [[The Damned]]
* [[Adicts]]
* [[U.K. Subs]]
* [[The Exploited]]
* [[The Clash]]
* The [[Anti-Nowhere League]]
* [[Flux of Pink Indians]]
* [[Conflict]]
* [[Siouxsie and the Banshees]]
* [[The Stranglers]]
* [[The Fall]]

=== United States ===
* [[Pixies]]
* [[The Ramones]]
* [[Television(band)|Television]]
* [[Dead Kennedys]]
* [[Anti-Flag]]
* [[Misfits]]
* [[New York Dolls]]
* [[Bad Religion]]
* [[Dropkick Murphys]]
* [[Black Flag]]

==Christianity in Punk Music==

There are some Christian punk bands.

Some examples of Punk bands who are Christians and Christian Punk bands are:

*[[MxPx]]
*[[Relient K]]
*[[Slick Shoes]]

==External Links==
[http://www.punkvoter.com]

[[Category:Punk]]

Reality

2007-07-02T02:35:08Z

All Fish Welcome: vandalism

'''Reality''' is something that is really true.
Reality is mind-independent, i.e. reality would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed it, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe it in the first place.

:"That which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- [[Philip K. Dick]]

==Descriptions of reality==

Something is said to be "a fact" is, a concept, statement, thing, scientific law, or event that can been unequivocally (indisputably) proven to be true. Facts are always based on concrete verified evidence which substantiate their truth.

[[category:philosophy]]

Physician

2007-07-02T02:32:42Z

All Fish Welcome: added DO, noted med school is a grad school

A '''physician''' is a person who is licensed to practice [[medicine]]. Physicians take care of the human body and its ailments. A modern physician undertakes a course of study at an institution of higher learning such as a [[university]]. In the U.S. a physician earns the degree [[Doctor]] of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) after 4 years of graduate study. In the U.K., Ireland and most [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries the basic medical degree is of 6 or 7 years of duration. In recent times a postgraduate 4-year degree has been introduced.

In general all physicians who wish to gain certification (US) or registration (UK) must undertake extra training and or residency. In the UK and most of the Commonwealth the term physician is used for a person who has undertaken around 8 more years of study and training above their university degree. Physicians in this instance are considered to be specialist[http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectId=668DFD94-2A57-5487-D4FDBF2C1F2F0291].

==External links==
*[http://www.acponline.org/ American College of Physicians]
*[http://www.racp.edu.au/ Royal Australian College of Physicians]
*[http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/ Royal College of Physicians]

Talk:Jack the Ripper

2007-05-31T14:48:17Z

All Fish Welcome:

It is rumored that Jack the Ripper was a Freemason and to be entered into the order you have to believe in God or a higher power. If this is true there's no way he can be an atheist. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Lots of things are rumored about Jack the Ripper. They are almost all entirely baseless. (Though "From Hell" was a fantastic graphic novel!)--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 10:48, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Dinosaur

2007-05-30T09:22:43Z

All Fish Welcome: It's all Greek to me.

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός and σαύρα, meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

* '''Stegosaurus''' was a dinosaur with plates on its back and spines on its tail. Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.{{fact}}

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth.

Christians are often depicted as believing that God planted the fossils to test their faith, and it's true that some Christians believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Few creationists believe this.
Most people accept that dinosaurs existed.
Young-Earth creationists, however, reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===

[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

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

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, 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,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaurs-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.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included 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.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The 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. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.<ref>Talk.Origins argues ([http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html Claim CH712], ''TalkOrigins.org'') that the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is based on the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China. CreationWiki's response ([http://creationwiki.org/Dragons_were_dinosaurs Dragons were dinosaurs] (rebuttal of Talk.Origins' claim CH712)) is that the fossils reminded people of the legends, not that the fossils inspired the legends.</ref>
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Jurassic]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** 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 <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine Biotechnology Australia [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. University Of California, Berkeley[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth marinebio.org[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

----

===Evolutionary Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref>

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning all bird species today are, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Dinosaur

2007-05-30T09:20:38Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Dinosaurs and Birds */ cladistic view

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] word δεινόςσαύρα, meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

* '''Stegosaurus''' was a dinosaur with plates on its back and spines on its tail. Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.{{fact}}

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth.

Christians are often depicted as believing that God planted the fossils to test their faith, and it's true that some Christians believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Few creationists believe this.
Most people accept that dinosaurs existed.
Young-Earth creationists, however, reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===

[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

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

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, 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,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaurs-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.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included 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.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The 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. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.<ref>Talk.Origins argues ([http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html Claim CH712], ''TalkOrigins.org'') that the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is based on the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China. CreationWiki's response ([http://creationwiki.org/Dragons_were_dinosaurs Dragons were dinosaurs] (rebuttal of Talk.Origins' claim CH712)) is that the fossils reminded people of the legends, not that the fossils inspired the legends.</ref>
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Jurassic]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** 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 <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine Biotechnology Australia [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. University Of California, Berkeley[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth marinebio.org[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

----

===Evolutionary Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref>

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning all bird species today are, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-05-30T09:12:04Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Day 6 Creation Mechanisms? */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

== Alternative version of the article ==

It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article. A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently. Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match).
The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course). Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am mostly happy with the current article. Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now ==
Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible. There is a branch of science called "evolutionary biology," but they do not deal with dinosaurs. If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

:"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]

:Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

:I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:: Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationary" ==

Conservative, that ''you've'' never heard the word "creationary" is not really the point, is it? That ''most'' haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that. It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read [http://www.geocities.com/hftamke/creation.html here] for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm down with that compromise.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I think we should not use the word "creationary" if it is not in more than one current very large dictionary. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Then I must have misspoken. Let's use them both.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping apparent joke==
:However, a certain "Dr. Karl Pilkington", has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as "1 million years BC", by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be "some cross over point" where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ One Million Years BC] is a 1966 science fiction movie, and [http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/onemillionbc3sh.jpg Raquel Welch] was the "curvy" actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has [http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page his own Wiki]. Sounds like someone was having fun. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== OK ==

Let's discuss this:
* For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur. A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.

Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur? Anyone?

* The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."

This contradicts the section title.

* Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25] Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, and in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations. The 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.

What does this have to do with anything. There are a lot of cultural references to animals which don't even exist! This makes no sense.

* Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Again, contradicts section title.

* Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.

Has anyone seen that?[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't understand your claim that two of those points "contradict the section title". The section title is "Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting", and each of those points provide support (not proof, but support) of humans and dinosaurs coexisting at some time (or are you reading the section title as saying that they coexist ''now''?).
:I doubt that there are ''lots'' of cultural references to animals which don't exist, but the point here is that cultural references to creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs supports the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting, especially when there are so many references from two continents.
:By the way, I smiled at your reference to "evil British punctunation".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is "the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/images/elephant_skull_0.jpg]?" You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not suggesting that the cyclops existed. I didn't deny that there are ''some'' cultural references to animals that didn't exist, and I'll go further and admit that perhaps the Greeks had quite a few. But by the same token, people too readily dismiss cultural references to things they haven't otherwise heard of rather than see if there might be a basis for them. The descriptions of dragons are many and widespread, and largely consistent with descriptions of dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, as I understand it, the dragons that appeared in the different cultures (including English culture) wheren't actually that similiar to dinosaurs. If anything, they were more serpent like. In some cases, they were extremely different. The 'looking kindda like dinosaurs' is just the modern interpretation of dragons. Ironically, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on them. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::What do you mean by "serpent like"? Long and slender? Legless? Dragons seem to have had a wide variety of descriptions (which is as you'd expect if they are dinosaurs, i.e. if they are referring to a group of creatures, not a particular type of creature; dinosaurs came in a wide variety of shapes), some serpent-like but others not. Note that most of the pictures in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Wikipedia dragon article] are not really serpent-like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== "[S]ome descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today..." ==

The reference in a creationist journal for this statement says, "The feasibility of the idea that some dinosaurs may still be alive has a little more support, although at this time we would have to say it is not conclusive." If the creationists are saying it's not conclusive, then why is it in the article? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. I've downgraded the claim to be more consistent with the reference. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== "For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.[15]" ==

The only sentence in ref 15 about explorers is, "And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons." Mammoths and stegodons are not dinosaurs. And the plural "explorers" implies more than one. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe you could quibble about the word "explorers" vs. "researchers" or similar, but look further down in that referenced article to the bit about Mokele-mbembe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know of many recent explorers. In most people's (and I mean most) "explorers" are the folks who went looking for "new worlds" 100s of years ago. I've done research, but never considered myself and explorer before. I shouldn't have to interpret references anyway :). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How about replacing the sentence with "People in the Congo have reported seeing a creature they termed "mokele-mbembe," meaning "one that stops the flow of rivers." French priests translate this as "monstrous animals." Dr. Roy Mackal made an expedition to the region and recorded the Congolese descriptions of the mokele-mbembe.<ref>http://www.mokelembembe.com/</ref> (and reference 15). That's much more clear than "explorers reported seeing...," which really isn't in ref 15 anyway. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's too much irrelevant information for the space, in my opinion. The important point for this article is not what it's called and what that means, but that the ''description'' matched that of a dinosaur. Your suggestion doesn't mention that. Second, I would be happy to change it to "People in the Congo..." if it were not for the facts that it wasn't just the Congo and that a biologist has reported seeing it as well as ordinary "people" (see reference 15).
::I'm still open to suggestions on alternative wording, however.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you seem to claim a monopoly to the wording, what better word than explorer would you recommend? And what other researchers have observed a dinosaur? The ONLY reference to explorers in the reference is the British explorer that saw a mammoth. The "expeditions" brought back "ordinary people"'s (your words) observations, but Dr. Mackal did not observe one. ''There's '''nothing''' in the reference about explorers and dinosaurs.'' [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:How am I claiming a monopoly on the wording if I'm inviting suggestions of better wording? I'll try to do some rewording of that entire section, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes ==

The first edit that I've reverted was deletion of the comment about recent sightings, with the edit comment, "''the author has since retracted claims - see reference''". This is incorrect. The author has retracted ''one'' recent sighting, but there are still others in that article, so the statement is still correct.

The second edit removed information without any explanation. I will reinstate the minor wording changes that were also in that edit.

The third edit removed information with the edit comment, "''article discredited by scientist it quotes http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491''". This is incorrect. First a couple of minor quibbles. The ''article'' was not discredited, so much as the ''claims'' of the article, and the the main scientist it quotes was not the one who disputed the claims, but her boss. More relevant, however, is that the claims were ''disputed''; to say that they were ''discredited'' is to put a POV on whether the disputing succeeded. Most relevant is that the claim in this (Dinosaur) article was ''not even disputed''. The claim in this article was, "''Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.''". Horner did not "discredit" ''that creationists see things this way'', and the reference cited in the edit comment did not retract the creationist claim.

The fourth edit was grammatically incorrect, but I will reword it to make it a bit closer to the edit.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html ==

This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that it doesn't cite sources. Hang fire until I've reworded that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes (2) ==

The first edit I reverted this time had the edit comment, "''China Today is noted for "Inquirer"-like sensational stories that cannot be confirmed.''". Show me some evidence of this and I'll agree to the re-removal of that bit.

The second edit had the edit comment, "''Author of the reference claims to be the Paleontologist for the United States "Rational" Museum, which apparently does not exist.''". No, it said the "'''N'''ational" Museum, which is an [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0919950.html alternative or former name] of the Smithsonian Institute, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Gilmore Wikipedia] and other sources confirm that Gilmore was a paleontologist there.

The third edit had the edit comment, "''Information about dragons belongs in an article on dragons.''". Sorry, but the point is that creationists see dragons as being dinosaurs. Thus it belongs here.

The fourth edit had the edit comment, "''Reference indicates that author retracted his claims about dinosaurs.''". Please don't go repeating the same changes without giving new (and valid) reasons for doing so. The same editor made this same deletion with the same basic edit comment before, which I answered above when I reverted it.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== If this is a joke, it's not that funny. ==

In my short time at Conservapedia, I've seen two 1337-speaking vandals attack (striking, among other things, my newly-made talk page!), and I've had the misfortune of seeing this article. Between the two - the vandalism and this article - I'm not sure which one is worse. I mean, I'm as conservative as the next guy (that's why I joined the site), but I'm also... errr... "college educated." There's a line between "conservative" and "creationist" that I don't think you guys really get, and it bothers me to have you creating this site in the name of all conservatives, who include me...

Let's start briefly with the content. The Loch Ness Monster is proof of the continued existence of dinosaurs? Seriously? And treating science as a "point of view" that needs to be "balanced" is obscene. Anyone who's taken science classes in any school knows that science doesn't concern itself with having a point of view, and if you believe to the contrary, honestly, you could probably find a better conspiracy theory to believe in. It strikes me that what you're working for in this article is the taking of "political correctness" to its logical extreme, that even bad science is an "opinion" that deserves "equal time." As a conservative, the idea of political correctness bothers me enough, and it should bother you, too, but I see that where being PC serves you, you're more than happy to indulge. I'd rather not dignify the rest of this article with a response.

The real weakness, though, is sourcing. Encyclopedias imply objective, factual writing. That means good academic sourcing. But, the creationist claims here are sourced to outlandishly biased one-trick-pony sites I've never even heard of before, but they all seem to have their own agenda. A basic underpinning of academic writing, as I have learned, is objective & honest use of citations. But the way you cite in this article is no better than having an article on Hillary Clinton that said, <nowiki>"Hillary would be a good president <ref>See her campaign website</ref>."</nowiki> You see the comparison? You can't support a biased statement with a biased citation just to give an illusion of objectivity: it's just my hunch, but I suspect that "AnswersInGenesis" and "CreationOnTheWeb" have a not-so-hidden agenda.

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke. What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''. The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective. Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]]. There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative. Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too). But I've also taken science classes. Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious? And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:I believe that it's you that's assuming your conclusion. You've not even bothered to explain why the sources are supposedly "biased niche-sources" and opposing sources are not, and why the sources are not "serious". Making those assertions without something to back it up is not a valid argument. And you are sort of wrong with the "biased niche-sources" anyway. The creationist sources referenced frequently cite from non-creationist sources. So what that you've taken science classes? So have the scientists who are creationists! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The scientific community has a system & a vetting process for dealing with theories, that produces thoroughly reviewed & respected articles. Can you point to any of those for your creation "science"? Can you point to an accredited university that teaches it? And don't get out of that by calling all universities "liberal": while I agree that the social science depts at most universities are fairly liberal, the science depts are not. Really, I didn't think it was necessary to prove that AnswersInGenesis is a biased niche source. Look at it, and page through the articles - it's clearly a one-issue action group, which isn't that objectively persuasive.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's at least two peer-reviewed creationist science journals that I know of. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the universities in the U.S. to answer that question. And even some evolutionists admit that evolution is a religion, and many universities are religiously liberal at the very least. I'm not denying that AiG has a bias; I'm claiming that evolutionists have a bias also. I can't help it if you're not persuaded by their science, including the science that they quote from evolutionists which I previously mentioned and you seem to have ignored. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys ''come'' from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"''That one's new to me, too!''". Hmmm, it seems that there is a lot that you don't know. Perhaps you should read up on the creation/evolution debate a bit more (and not just from the evolutionary side).
:Michael Ruse is an anti-creationist who denied that evolution was a religion, then later admitted that it is treated that way. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/ here].
:I'm also a Christian, and I'm also a rational one (well, I believe that I am, just like you believe that you are). There ''is'' a concerted effort to push evolution. Whenever anyone suggests even that students ought to consider alternatives, the evolutionists come out with guns blazing (figuratively speaking) to prevent evolution even being questioned. The reason (not that they admit it)? Because at root this is a ''spiritual'' issue. Despite you (and many others) being Christians who believe in evolution, the atheists know that the Bible and evolution are contradictory, and belief in evolution has destroyed many a Christian's faith. Demonstrating that evolution may not in fact be true is therefore undermining one of the atheists' most important weapons.
:Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being. But the ''scientists'', on the other hand, do often have agendas.
:"''Evolution simply explains life better...''". That is your ''opinion'', but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.
:"''...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)''". You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before. And it's simply untrue. [[Physical science|Science]] was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists. So evolution, which came later, does ''not'' underlie all of modern science. Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/347 here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/86/ here], and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5075 here].
:"''I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.''". Huh? What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?
:"''Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.''". Why is that?
:"''I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath.''". Who's tossing out geology? The dating methods can be tossed out because they don't stand up to scrutiny, partly because they are, in part, built on assumptions that rule out creation to start with. So using them to argue against creation is circular reasoning. And you just called thousands of scientists and other people "insane and delusional". That's a lovely way to make an argument.
:"''Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.''. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, you truly astound me. You manage to sound so reasonable spouting the most ridiculous stuff. I am amazed that someone who seems genuinely intelligent and well spoken can truly dismiss science so readily and try to make the scientific community out to be te crackpots. One thing that truly bothers me in your arguments though is when you continue to claim that dating methods are flawed because they proceed from the assumption that creation did not exist... but this is ridiculous. You are referring to the Flood which supposedly altered the carbon ratio of the planet. Science does not assume this didn't happen. Science does not have to assume it didn't happen. The absence of an event is the default assumption. Without credible scientific evidence of a global flood that altered the carbon ratio. there is no reason to include it in the calculation. Claiming the dating methods don't stand up to scrutiny because your assumption of creationism requires it is disingenuous at best. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 09:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps I sound reasonable because what I'm "spouting" is not ridiculous?
:I am ''not'' dismissing science. I'm criticising the views of some (many) ''scientists''. Similarly, I'm not making the scientific community out to be crackpots; I'm pointing out that they have their own biases, their own worldviews/religions, and that these views often drive their views of origins. Yes, the same applies to me, but at least I admit it. They don't (most of the time; they do at times).
:I'm not referring ''only'' to altered carbon ratios of the flood, but yes, that is one of the things I'm referring to.
:You contradicted yourself regarding the assumptions. You first claimed that science ''doesn't'' assume this, then say that they ''do''; as the default assumption.
:What evidence for a global flood would you consider credible? It seems that you have already rejected as evidence that the vast majority of the rock on the planet is sedimentary, just as you would expect from a global flood. And that there are billions of dead things (fossils) in those sediments, just as you'd expect from a global flood. etc. etc.
:Even if it is fair to claim that assuming no flood is a fair assumption, it is still ''not'' fair to then claim that the dating methods contradict a global flood; it is still circular reasoning.
:I'm not rejecting the dating methods solely because they contradict the written historical record, but also because they have proved themselves unreliable. There are ''many'' documented cases of rocks of known age (the eruptions were witnessed) being dated incorrectly, of different methods giving inconsistent dates, and similar problems.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm familiar with the concept of "order of magnitude", thanks. I don't see the relevance here unless you are saying that 6000 years is just too big an adjustment for you to make.
:::I don't dismiss all of geological dating just because "there are errors". I reject it for several reasons, including (a) it contradicts the written testimony of God, (b) there are ''lots'' of examples of contradictory dates, (c) it is based on unprovable assumptions, and (d) there are very few if any examples where it has been shown to be right on rocks of known age.
:::Your "interest" in some science views being okay and some questionable ignores the difference between [[physical science#Types of science|operational and origins science]]. Your examples are the former, whereas I am rejecting the latter. No contradiction there at all. And some of those examples actually benefited from the research of creationists.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I think a huge misunderstanding here is that some people believe that once upon a time there was a entirely Christian world, then suddenly some sinner decided there was no God and he invented science to prove this.
This is of course complete and utter bull-you-know-what.

This is how it really went: the pursuit of knowledge (astronomy, mathematics) predate today's dominant religions by thousands of years, research has always been done on a global scale under many different religions, when it became possible to crosscheck their findings, these early researchers had established a peer-reviewing system, making these findings independent of any of the local religions, of course some of these findings conflicted with the beliefs of the religions, but while religions went and go, science continued to advance, one day, one branch of religion became dominant, but the researchers living inside its sphere of influence continued their work, as did their colleagues in other parts of the world, many of these researchers were religious themselves and saw the pursuit of knowledge as a way to better understand the universe and thus a way to come a little closer to understanding the divine, one day they found evidence pointing towards a very old Earth, soon they found more, and more, and more...

There findings were not always compatible with the creation-myths of the religions, but these creation-myths were not compatible with each other either...

Then one day a new movement within one of the 5 dominant religions emerged: it declared that the Earth was 6000 years old, this of course conflicted with the creation-myths of some of the other religions... and with the evidence the researchers had found.

In an effort to discredit their opponents, this movement claimed the researchers had their own religion and that the movement's religion was so much more important than any of the other religions ever had been, that thousands of years ago the first researchers had somehow forseen the emergence of this movement and had worked all this time to debunk the beliefs of the movement before it even existed, in the process these researchers had even developed methods to make sure that experiments always went their way, no matter who did them, all because they tried to ridicule the beliefs of a movement that would only come to existence centuries later...

BTW, thanks for that ban Philip, I feel like a full member now!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: That's an interesting bit of fiction. Problems include:
:* Yes, there was a pursuit of knowledge, but science as we understand it [[Physical science#Beginnings|arose in and because of a Christian worldview]].
:* Christianity has been around by that name for 2000 years (and is a continuation of Judaism which was a continuation of the belief in the Creator, dating back to the creation of the world), whereas the peer review process has been around for what? A couple of hundred years?
:* It treats all religions as equal, and therefore as equally wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Just because some must be wrong (they can't all be right when they proclaim contradictory things), it doesn't follow that they are all wrong.
:* Belief in the Earth being around 6000 years old is not a recent, post-scientific, belief. It is what the Bible has recorded for thousands of years and in fact almost everybody thought that the age of the world was that order of magnitude until only about 200 years ago.
:I was annoyed at having to give you a ban. You were the first person I've blocked, other than people who came here solely to vandalise.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

* So what, the Arabs didn't invent algebra and the Greeks and the peoples of China and India were obviously all devout Christians?
Human curiosity is the reason behind science, religion usually just slows it down, although some scientists also believe a better understanding of the universe means a better understanding of the divine, they don't have to be Christians to believe that (for example the Arab mathematicians).
Abraham lived approximately 3800 years ago, that's hardly the time of the creation of the world, and the Abrahamic beliefs remained insignificant on a global scale until the 4th century AD.
* No, it doesn't prove they are all wrong, but yes, science treats every religion equally.
* Belief in the Earth being about 6000 years old was a theory put forward in the 17th century, the Bible never mentioned a creation date, and even if one religion were to be true than there's only a tiny chance it's Christianity (considering how many religions there have been).
Personally I think Buddhism comes closest, since it doesn't make too many assumptions that contradict science.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I agree that religion usually slows down interest in science, but Christianity is the exception to that rule, ''as previously pointed out''. So why the continuing objection?
:Belief in a creator dates back to Adam, not Abraham.
:What do you mean, the Bible never mentions a creation date? What would you expect it to say? Perhaps you'd expect Moses to have written that it was created in 4004 '''B.C.'''? Hardly. If it was to mention a creation date, how would it best do so? What it does is give a list of time spans that can be added to work out when creation occurred. That's about the best you could hope for, and that is what it does. And even non-YEC experts agree that this is what was intended. I assume that you are alluding to Ussher calculating the date of creation in 1650. But Ussher was not the first nor the last to do so; just the best known.
:You are still treating all religions as equal with your comment about the chances of Christianity being the correct one, and it is still just as illogical. And Christianity makes no assumptions that contradict science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:

== thanks! ==

Phil, thanks for clarifying the Mokele-member part of the story. (I'm not a big fan on bulleted lists--it makes it look like the writer is just trying to occupy more space--but that's your stylistic choice.)

The only other true objection (well, at least that I will bring up) is that the "exctinct species that were found" argument. An analogous argument is that apples provide evidence for oranges. That is, there's nothing about pine trees, squirrels or fish that provide any evidence for dinosaurs, because they are not related. Certainly you would not say that birds do not provide evidence for dinosaurs (!), so why would squirrels or fish or pine trees?

Other than that, I think you have portrayed the creationist perspective as well as it will ever be done. Cheerio! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'm not crazy about the bulleted list here either, but it seemed the best choice in the circumstances. I could have made each first-level bullet a sub-sub-heading perhaps, but there barely seemed enough content in each one for that, and I felt that making the arrangement clear was important. I might think more about that.
:The extinct species bit is simply to counter the objection that some do make that the mere fact that dinosaurs were last in the fossil record 65 million years ago (on the evolutionary timescale) indicates that they died out that long ago. The examples show that this is not a valid argument. Can I make that clearer somehow?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Joke article?==
Offence is not meant to the creator(s) of this article, but is it a joke, or is it meant as a Straw Man argument ''for'' evolution? Can't we do better than this article? The title of this article is '''Dinosaur''', but aside from the first two sentences, it's an article refuting evolution, and not really about dinosaurs at all.

For example, in an article about dinosaurs, you'd expect there to be a mention of, you know, individual types of dinosaurs or something. The animals mentioned in this article are:

*Triceratops (a dinosaur)
*Beetle (not)
*Medusa (not)
*Cat (not)
*Behemoth (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
*Leviathan (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
*Loch Ness Monster (please God, no)
*Plesiosaur (not)
*Mokele-member (please God, no)
*Thunderbird (not)
*Pterosaur (not)
*Dragons (not)
*Coelacanth (not)
*T-rex (in footnote only)

This article is so ''soooo'' bad it makes me embarassed to be a Christian. Why do the Loch Ness Monster, dragons, and other mythical beasts have to be discussed in this article, while ''genuine'' types of dinosaurs aren't even mentioned? I'd love to be able to send my children to Conservapedia, but articles like this are an absolute train wreck. I really want to cry. [[User:HolierThanThou|HolierThanThou]] 21:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree that the article lacks enough information about dinosaurs, particularly the different types of dinosaurs. Feel free to add information about that.
:I don't see why an article about dinosaurs can't mention other creatures at all, but how do you know that dragons were not dinosaurs?
:I have been thinking that maybe some of the stuff in this article could be removed to one or more separate articles (with a brief summary of their points remaining here).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

While I wouldn't be so bold as to edit the personal sandbox of certain sysops here, I can't help but point out that the statement: "They use overwhelming archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times. " is incredibly biased towards creationism. Use of the word "overwhelming" when describing the evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is at best an overstatement, at worst an outright lie. Perhaps one of the Favored-Ones who hold some pretense of semi-neutrality might consider removing the word overwhelming? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=141796&oldid=141780 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=141810&oldid=141796 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

So I see. Yep, pretty much why I am having a hard time convincing myself that contributing edits would be worthwhile... [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.

You've got to be kidding!
It's almost as ridiculous as that statement about the T-rex being a herbivore...

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You will note that I've put a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag on that claim, as I've never heard of it myself (and I have a pretty good idea of creationist claims). If no supporting evidence is forthcoming, the edit should be reversed. As for it being as ridiculous as T-rex being a herbivore, that latter one is not ridiculous at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, we all know killer jaws come in handy when eating leafs...

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Have a look at [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/fp_articles/2004/review_skull.jpg this skull] of a carnivore and tell me what you think it eats. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

From the look of it it's probably a mammalian omnivore.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:It's actually a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 fruit bat]. Despite being classified as a carnivore on the basis of its teeth, it doesn't eat meat. Things are not always as they seem. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It eats fruit with hard shells, not leafs, and it's teeth aren't nearly as deadly as that of a T-rex (that's why I classified it as an omnivore rather than a carnivore), they are a bit pointy, but still relatively flat (square-like) they are not 15cm long razor blades (dagger-like), also the bat has (pointy) molars, the T-rex had none (it had gaps between its teeth, making it practically impossible to grind leafs or fruit.

Oh, don't forget the dinosaur, crocodile, shark and plesiosaur fossils found with skeletons of their prey in their stomach.

But in my time here I've come to see that not everyone holds the same definitions of "facts" and "evidence".

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You were the one that brought up leaves, not me. Perhaps T-rex' teeth were also to eat hard things, rather than leaves?
:Also, I was only discussing one particular aspect of the issue. Another is that creationists do accept that creatures adapt (within their design limits), and it is therefore possible that T-rex' teeth are an adaption that suits carnivory, and were not exactly as originally designed.
:I'm not sure of the relevance of your comment about creatures with skeletons of their prey. Nobody is disputing that those creatures are/were carnivores, as nobody is disputing that T-rex was a carnivore. The point of contention is whether or not it was ''always'' a carnivore. The Bible teaches that all creatures were created as vegetarians, not that they were always vegetarians.
:I agree with your comments about facts and evidence, although in my case it's the evolutionists that I tend to notice confusing what's what. :-)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

But the molars?
Every land living herbivore animal has them, omnivores have them, but carnivores don't, and T-rex didn't have them, you need molars to eat leafs or fruits, but carnivores can swallow pieces of meat directly; meat doesn't have to be grinded before it arrives in the stomach, because it's easier to digest (plant cells have a cell wall that animal cells lack).

Also if T-rex had become carnivores after the flood, then where are they now?
Where did all the dinosaurs go, how come there were no dinosaurs in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:T-rex may well have become a carnivore before the flood (but after the Fall). Since the flood, they have become extinct. How do you know that there were no dinosaurs in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?
:I don't know enough about the teeth to answer that part of your question, but you seem to be overlooking what I said about creatures adapting. I can't say how much they could have adapted, but I suspect that you can't either, so the question remains open. (If only research funds were available to creationists, more of these sorts of questions could be answered! All donations are gratefully received.)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Creatures adapting, hey, wait a minute... there's a word for that: evolution!

Well you'd think that if there were giant Sauropods and T-rexes stampeding through your land at least someone would mention it in their writings, these cultures did mention just about every other animal they knew of...

But go look it up: you can't eat plants without molars!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:There are a number of words for it, and "evolution" is one of them, given the [[Definitions of evolution#Gene frequency|broad and almost-meaningless definition]] that it currently carries. But adaptation is ''not'' the same as "goo-to-you" evolution (see the previous section of that linked article).
:How do you know that those cultures mentioned just about every animal that they knew of? Do you have a complete list of animals that they knew of to compare against the ones they mentioned? My bet is that you don't.
:Besides, nobody is claiming that T-rex in particular survived for long after the flood, nor that it was common and widespread.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

And lo! Jared who was begat of Mahalaleel went down into the valley green and did find his path verily blocked by a fearsome Beast called Tyrannosaurus. And he did run away screaming "O Lord! Save thine humble servant from this dirty great lizard! I fear that it may eat me for it has no molars!"

And the Lord saw that Jared was wise for Beasts that have no molars feed solely upon the Flesh of other Beasts and He did spare him for having taken such close regard of His Creation.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Where are the "theories"? ==

In the article, it says that creationists have some "therories" that harmonyze with each other (*cough*evolutionharmonizeswitheverythingelse*cough*), but there's no mention of those, I would like to know them.

BTW: The man-dinosaur thing is a joke, why doesn't aztecs, egyptians, american natives, and all the old cultures menion dinosaurs, yes, the dragons, giant lizards an stuff '''are''' there, but where's the rest? {{unsigned|Aknot}}

: The reference to theories harmonising, although under the Creation Perspective section, is actually a reference to evolutionary theories.
: As far as those cultures are concerned, perhaps there ''are'' mentions that have yet to be recognised as such. And creationists believe that references to dragons ''are'' references to dinosaurs.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

yes, but they ''only'' hav dragons, where's everything else? [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 16:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:You'll have to explain yourself better; I'm not following. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

PWNED! [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 15:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Mind your manners, Aknot. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

sorry, i tought PJ.R was never going to surrender :p [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 17:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

{{QuoteBox|We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. '''We shall never surrender!'''}}
: :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Discovery Institute and the saddle==
Why was my edit about the Stegosaurus saddle [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=161482&oldid=160544 reverted]? It was reverted without explanation, and it is sourced. It's even about a dinosaur instead of a dragon. [[User:HolierThanThou|HolierThanThou]] 08:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:Are you serious? That is a spoof news site. Apart from anything else, the "news" item dated as occurring on 29th March 2006 was posted on 10th October 2005, consistent with their motto of "Tomorrow's news Today". You're fortunate I didn't block you for vandalism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

==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? [[User:50something|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 "[[baramin|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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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? [[User:50something|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.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:50something|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? [[User:Feichineejits|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 [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Feichineejits|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! [[User:50something|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 [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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 [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 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.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creation Museum

2007-05-29T04:32:01Z

All Fish Welcome: clarifying

I'm a big fan of the creation museum and Ken Ham but does this really belong in a encyclopedia?
<blockquote>
''"Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May"''
</blockquote>

:Oh, come on, it won't last more than a day. Someone will quote was was said tomorrow. Give me a break...--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:35, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just not sure whether the page is intended to be a announcement board of AGI events... Remember (as I'm sure you know) this is a encyclopedia.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::OK if I'd left out that last bit, the other section would probably have got zapped. This way, I layed down a marker for someone else to follow tomorrow. I am trying to be even handed here.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Well... the fill in for O'Reilly really didn't let Ken Ham say that much.... The only really useful museum fact from the interview/mini debate was that the museum had over 4,000 visitors today.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 21:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm changing "evolutionist Lawrence Krauss" to "physicist Lawrence Krauss." Kraus's main focus of research and teaching is physics. I'm adding a link to his faculty page as supporting documentation. Outside of academia, he's probably best-known for writing a book about Star Trek. He's written a little about evolutionary biology in the popular press, and he debated a young earth creationist at Case maybe five years ago, but he's still a physicist by trade and reputation.

Clarification: Labeling Krauss as an "evolutionist" is both redundant and deceptive. It is redundant because Krauss's quoted comments make it very clear he favors biological evolution to young earth creationism. It is deceptive because it makes it looks like Krauss specializes in the study of evolution.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Creation Museum

2007-05-29T04:28:25Z

All Fish Welcome:

[[Image:CMpix1.JPG|thumb|300px|The front of the Creation Museum while under construction in 2005.]]
The Creation Museum is a multi million dollar museum in the United States designed to promote [[Young Earth Creationism]]. It will open its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The museum presents a literal interpretation of [[Genesis]] in the origin of universe and life. The exhibits are designed to attempt to demonstrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. The enterprise is supported by [[Ken Ham]], creator of the group [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].

Controversy has raged since the enterprise was announced with physicist Lawrence Krauss<ref>[http://www.phys.cwru.edu/faculty/index.php?krauss Lawrence Krauss, Faculty Page]</ref>, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, stating that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it:
<blockquote>"... repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations" <ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24 </ref></blockquote>

Ken Ham defended the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May <ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly </ref>

==references==
<references/>

Creation Museum

2007-05-29T04:28:07Z

All Fish Welcome: correctly identifying Krauss's profession

[[Image:CMpix1.JPG|thumb|300px|The front of the Creation Museum while under construction in 2005.]]
The Creation Museum is a multi million dollar museum in the United States designed to promote [[Young Earth Creationism]]. It will open its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The museum presents a literal interpretation of [[Genesis]] in the origin of universe and life. The exhibits are designed to attempt to demonstrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. The enterprise is supported by [[Ken Ham]], creator of the group [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].

Controversy has raged since the enterprise was announced with physicist Lawrence Krauss<ref>[http://www.phys.cwru.edu/faculty/index.php?krauss Lawrence Krauss, Faculty Page]</ref>, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University stating that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it:
<blockquote>"... repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations" <ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24 </ref></blockquote>

Ken Ham defended the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May <ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly </ref>

==references==
<references/>

Talk:Creation Museum

2007-05-29T04:25:40Z

All Fish Welcome:

I'm a big fan of the creation museum and Ken Ham but does this really belong in a encyclopedia?
<blockquote>
''"Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May"''
</blockquote>

:Oh, come on, it won't last more than a day. Someone will quote was was said tomorrow. Give me a break...--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:35, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just not sure whether the page is intended to be a announcement board of AGI events... Remember (as I'm sure you know) this is a encyclopedia.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::OK if I'd left out that last bit, the other section would probably have got zapped. This way, I layed down a marker for someone else to follow tomorrow. I am trying to be even handed here.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Well... the fill in for O'Reilly really didn't let Ken Ham say that much.... The only really useful museum fact from the interview/mini debate was that the museum had over 4,000 visitors today.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 21:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm changing "evolutionist Lawrence Krauss" to "physicist Lawrence Krauss." Kraus's main focus of research and teaching is physics. I'm adding a link to his faculty page as supporting documentation. Outside of academia, he's probably best-known for writing a book about Star Trek. He's written a little about evolutionary biology in the popular press, and he debated a young earth creationist at Case maybe five years ago, but he's still a physicist by trade and reputation.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Creation Museum

2007-05-28T20:54:03Z

All Fish Welcome: fixed name of school

The Creation Museum is a multi million dollar museum in the United States designed to promote [[Young Earth Creationism]]. It will open its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The museum presents a literal interpretation of [[Genesis]] in the origin of universe and life. The exhibits are designed to demonstrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. The enterprise is supported by [[Ken Ham]], creator of the group [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].

Controversy has raged since the enterprise was first announced with [[Lawrence Krauss]], director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University stating that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it:
<blockquote>"... repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of science and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling animatronic displays and explanations" <ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24 </ref></blockquote>

Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May <ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly </ref>

==references==
<references/>

Big Bang theory

2007-05-26T10:47:50Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views */ begging the question that "someone" "set off" the Big Bang

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the creation of the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who coined the term, although he used it disparagingly.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Bing Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Most [[Atheist]]s believe in the Big Bang theory. There is active research and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, but atheists agree it was not a deity.

Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.

Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Latin

2007-05-24T20:06:28Z

All Fish Welcome:

I tried to remove the bias where this article implicitly states as fact the theory that Latin evolved from Proto-Indo-European, a language theorized by linguistic evolutionists to have been spoken at about 3900 BC, a date incompatible with Christian teachings about all languages being created by God in the third millennium BC. My attempt to create balance was quickly reverted by [[User:MatteeNeutra]], so now again, there's a strong pro-evolution bias in the article. I wonder if this is really fitting for a conservative encyclopedia.
--[[User:Brtkrbzhnv|Brtkrbzhnv]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Is it fair to say Latin was ''the'' language of the Roman Empire? Greek was spoken in the East, and many subject peoples maintained their native languages as a birth tongue for some time.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 16:06, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Fellowship of the Ring

2007-05-24T18:01:26Z

All Fish Welcome: comprises doesn't take a preposition in formal writing

The '''Fellowship of the Ring''' is the group comprised [[Frodo Baggins]] and the eight companions chosen by the Council of [[Elrond]] to help him destroy the One Ring in [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]'s novel [[The Lord of the Rings]].<ref>For the published volume, containing the first two parts of The Lord of the Rings, see [[The Fellowship of the Ring]].</ref> The nine are set against the nine evil riders of Mordor who are pursuing them. Members include [[Frodo Baggins]], [[Samwise Gamgee]], Peregrin ([[Pippin]]) Took, Meriodoc ([[Merry]]) Brandybuck, [[Gandalf]] the Grey, [[Aragorn]] the Ranger, [[Boromir]] of Gondor, [[Legolas]] the Elf, and [[Gimli]] the Dwarf.

{{spoiler}}
==Gathering of the Fellowship==
Before that the four hobbits of the fellowship (Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pipin) had lived peaceful, comfortable and sheltered lives in the shire. Gimli, the dwarf, lived in wealth in the Lonely Mountain. Legolas, the elf, had lived as a prince in Mirkwood. Boromir, of Gondor, lived as a soldier prince in his seiged land. Gandalf the Wizard was often busy with adventures, wars and quests. Aragorn lived a refugee's life in the wild. It all changed when Sauron began to hunt for the ring of power and preparing for war. Dwarves, Elves and Men found themselves all alike at war. Frodo Baggins had inherrited the ring from his uncle, Bilboe. When Gandalf told him of [[Sauron]]'s use of it he left with Sam for Rivendell. (Gandalf meanwhile was captured by [[Saruman]] the White.) Pippin accompanied Frodo and Sam (Merry joined them later). They had many adventures across plain and through forest chased by mysterious black riders. In a city called Bree, they met Aragorn who led them to Rivendell (with much trouble from the black riders).<ref>[[The Fellowship of the Ring]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==The Council of Elrond==
It was at the Council of Elrond that the Fellowship was formed. Frodo agreed to take the ring to Mordor and Sam insisted on accompanying him. Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, and Aragorn were all chosen to represent the "Free Folk" of the world. Gandalf was chosen because it was to be "his last task." Pippin and Merry were reluctantly accepted by Elrond (at Gandalf's advice).<ref>[[The Fellowship of the Ring]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==The Journeys of the Fellowship==
The fellowship travelled south to pass through the Misty Mountains. They attempted the Pass of Cahadras but failed to succeed. They chose, reluctantly, to take the road through the Mines of Moria. They fought wolves and goblins along the way. Gandalf was taken by a evil creature of fire and flame called a Balrog. They rested for a time in Lothlorien. They then rowed in boats down the river, Anduin, pursued by evil orcs. The journey down the river ended at a hill called Amon Hen.

==The Breaking of the Fellowship==
Boromir, thinking the Ring could be used for good, tried to take it by force from Frodo. Frodo ran away determined to go alone to Mordor. Orcs attacked the Fellowship on Amon Hen, mortally wounding Boromir and abducting Pippin and Merry. Before Boromir died he told the Fellowship of the hobbits' disappearance. Sam alone found Frodo and went on with him to Mordor. Aragorn recognized that the Fellowship's usefulness to the Ringbearer had ended, and led its remains to find the captured hobbits.

==The Fellowship in the War of the Ring==
The orcs who had captured Merry and Pippin where actually found and killed by riders of Rohan in a fierce battle. The hobbits escaped into Fangorn Forest during the battle. There they met Treebeard, an Ent, with whom they stayed for a time. The pursuers met the riders of [[Rohan]] and learned of the battle. They went into Fangorn where they met Gandalf, returned from death in White. They then realized that Rohan was about to be invaded by orcs and headed for its capital, Edoras. Gandalf roused the King of Rohan to bring up an army against the invaders. While Gandalf headed for more support, the others battled at the fortress of Helm's Deep. The battle was won by the heroes and they went to [[Isengard]], where the army's leader, Saruman, lived. They found the place flooded by the Ents with Merry and Pipin enjoying themselves. Then Gandalf left with Pippin for Gondor to give them aide against the dark Lord, Sauron. He and Pippin endured the siege of Gondor for many a day. Meanwhile, the others brought up armies to give aide to Gondor. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields was won with great cost. They finally made a march on [[Mordor]]. <ref>[[The Two Towers]] and [[The Return of the King]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==The Journeys of the Ring==
Frodo and Sam instead went for Mordor. Shortly afterwards they met Gollum, who led them across the wilds into Mordor. In the end though he betrayed them causing Frodo to be captured by evil orcs. Sam rescued Frodo from the orcs and they then traveled with their last strength to Mount Doom. At the end the Ring and Gollum were destroyed.

==The Passing of the Fellowship==
The Fellowship rejoiced in reunion at the field of Cormallen for a time. Aragorn was then crowned King of Gondor and wedded to [[Arwen]], daughter of Elrond. The hobbits met one last fight in their homeland. They defeated their old enemy Saruman in the battle of Bywater. A few years afterwards Frodo and Gandalf left by the Grey Havens. The rest of the Fellowship lived out it's days in offices and wanderings; some died in Middle-earth, but tradition holds that Sam, Legolas, and Gimli followed Frodo and Gandalf into the West.<ref>[[The Return of the King]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:book|book]]
[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Talk:Lucifer (angel)

2007-05-21T06:46:50Z

All Fish Welcome:

Ehhh, needs some work. Lucifer is not literally "Son of the Morning," it's literally more like Light Bearer (Lat. lux,-cis "light;" ferro,ferre,tuli,latum "to carry"). Lucifer was one of the Roman names for Venus, which was called Helel in Hebrew and "dawn-bearer" in the LXX. The text literally addresses Venus, but most modern commentators think it figuratively addresses the king of Babylon (e.g. [http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=14#n22 NET]).

In common parlance, it definitely refers to the Devil. But we shouldn't confuse modern eisegesis with responsible scholarly work.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 21:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the thoughts. While I can certainly make mistakes, I did check the Hebrew before starting the article and the word used is "Ben" which translates as son. Luficer, as written in Isaiah, would have pre-dated Venus by many hundreds of years. The Babylonian connection has been proposed, and with good reason, for quite some time, but there are elements that make it wanting as a full explanation. For instance the Babylonians were polytheistic, and while it was not uncommon for rulers to claim to be descended from a diety, they wouldn't say they were greater than the head of their pantheon. Just my thoughts. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nuts, we both should've checked the English before we checked the Hebrew. Luficer? How do we get this renamed?
:In any case, the Helel ben Shachar (Bright Son of the Dawn) is identified with the astronomical Venus, not the goddess Venus; I think I was unclear about that. The NET translators theorize Helel either symbolized the King of Babylon directly or alluded to a Babylonian myth. In the latter case, the mythical Helel attempts to overthrow heaven not unlike the Miltonian Satan. But it was definitely ''addressed'' to the king of Babylon, and the pompous theological title--often used, as you said, by Babylonian monarchs--fits right in with the pericope's mocking tone.
:In the LXX, Helel was εωσφορος--my Bible software doesn't key that to anything in Strong's, so I had to go to Wikipedia to explain this to me. The Greeks recognized the planet Venus as Eosphoros and Phosphoros, the bringer of the dawn and the bringer of light. Both were sons of Eos, Dawn, so Eosphoros was a good translation of Helel ben Shachar into the Greek idiom. The Romans called Eosphoros "Lucifer," a fairly literal translation from the Greek, and also an idiomatic translation of "Son of the Dawn," for Lucifer was Aurora's son. When translating the Vulgate, Jerome chose to use the existing Latin form. By this point, the name had picked up some Greco-Roman baggage that would not have been present when the autographs were inspired, but I can't say what the effect of that baggage might've been.
:So, that is the etymological history. Lucifer=Eosphoros=Bringer of Light=="Son of the Dawn"=Venus; Helel ben Shachar=Shining Son of Dawn=Venus. Lucifer is not a direct translation of the Hebrew "Shining Son of Dawn," but the Greco-Roman appellation of the same astronomical object with the similar idiomatic force.
:The identification of Lucifer, by any name, with Satan poses its own problems. There doesn't seem to be a Jewish tradition of Lucifer being Satan ([http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm link]), and many of the acts or personas traditionally associated with Lucifer/Satan can just as comfortably be filled by other interpretations of the text.
:While we're on the subject, Mike Carey's "Lucifer" comic book series is really good, and one should pick it up if one enjoyed the first four volumes of Sandman.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Aura

2007-05-21T05:10:30Z

All Fish Welcome: New page: I don't understand this. The aura surrounds all living things, yet it is produced by the energy generated by the human body. Were there no auras before humans evolved? Why do humans energi...

I don't understand this. The aura surrounds all living things, yet it is produced by the energy generated by the human body. Were there no auras before humans evolved? Why do humans energize the auras of all other organisms, how does that work?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 01:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Lucifer (angel)

2007-05-21T01:01:59Z

All Fish Welcome: New page: Ehhh, needs some work. Lucifer is not literally "Son of the Morning," it's literally more like Light Bearer (Lat. lux,-cis "light;" ferro,ferre,tuli,latum "to carry"). Lucifer was one of t...

Talk:Animal kingdom

2007-05-13T21:45:44Z

All Fish Welcome: New page: Ways to improve this article: *Not focused. The subject is "animal kingdom" but most of the text describes the other kingdoms. It doesn't describe what makes animals unlike other organism...

Ways to improve this article:

*Not focused. The subject is "animal kingdom" but most of the text describes the other kingdoms. It doesn't describe what makes animals unlike other organisms.
*Not accurate. There is dissension on whether there are five kingdoms or six; i.e. whether the archaea occupy their own kingdom.
*Not sourced. The only link in the article goes to a discussion forum.
*Contradictory. The article purports that protists are a distinct kingdom, but that it contains "weird animals." It also makes the assertion that "everything else" in God's Creation belongs in the protist kingdom -- should be "other organisms."
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Homo heidelbergensis

2007-05-13T19:41:12Z

All Fish Welcome: fix ref

A late humanoid, thought to be a common ancestor of [[Neanderthal]] man and modern humans<ref>http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Thunder bird

2007-05-13T19:32:27Z

All Fish Welcome: starting page

The '''Thunder Bird''' is a mythical creature in many [[Native American]] traditions. Although connected to lightning and thunder, it is usually benevolent. In some legends, the Thunder Bird is purely spiritual; in others, it has (or is entirely) a corporeal form, and may fall to the arrow of a hunter.

==References==
*[http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/thunder_bird.html ''Thunder Bird.''] Encyclopedia Mythica. Accessed 13 May 2007.

Pterosaur

2007-05-13T19:26:02Z

All Fish Welcome: Starting article

'''Pterosaurs''' (Greek "winged lizards") are an extinct order of flying reptiles that lived during the [[Mesozoic Era]]. They are believed to be the first vertebrates to achieve powered flight. Their varied skull morphology allowed them to exploit numerous food sources, and they ruled the air until the K-T extinction event.

==References==
*[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/pterosauria.html Introduction to the Pterosauria]. Accessed 13 May 2007.

Dinosaur

2007-05-11T16:36:55Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Dinosaur Species */

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] word δεινόςσαύρα, meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

* '''Stegosaurus''' was a dinosaur with plates on its back and spines on its tail. Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth.

Christians are often depicted as believing that God planted the fossils to test their faith, and it's true that some Christians believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Few creationists believe this.
Most people accept that dinosaurs existed.
Young-Earth creationists, however, reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===

[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

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

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, 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,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar". However, Behemoth could also not be a dinosaur because Behemoth is described as having "force in the navel of his belly." Since dinosaurs are oviparous, a dinosaur couldn't possibly have a navel.

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaurs-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.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included 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.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The 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. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.<ref>Talk.Origins argues ([http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html Claim CH712], ''TalkOrigins.org'') that the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is based on the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China. CreationWiki's response ([http://creationwiki.org/Dragons_were_dinosaurs Dragons were dinosaurs] (rebuttal of Talk.Origins' claim CH712)) is that the fossils reminded people of the legends, not that the fossils inspired the legends.</ref>
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Jurassic]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** 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 <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine Biotechnology Australia [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. University Of California, Berkeley[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth marinebio.org[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

----

===Evolutionary Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago.
In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref>

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Talk:Middle-earth

2007-05-11T16:29:15Z

All Fish Welcome: New page: This needs to be moved to Middle-earth. Blessings of the the Elentari to anyone who can do that.--~~~~

This needs to be moved to Middle-earth. Blessings of the the Elentari to anyone who can do that.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 12:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

The Hobbit

2007-05-11T16:28:24Z

All Fish Welcome: sp

[[Image:Hobbit_cover.JPG|thumb|right|Cover of ''The Hobbit'']]
'''The Hobbit''' or 'There and Back Again' is a book by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]] and the first published work about [[Middle-earth]]. In the book [[Bilbo Baggins]], a common [[hobbit]], is drafted by the [[Wizard (fiction)|wizard]] Gandalf, to go on an adventure. He travels with 13 [[dwarves]] who seek to reclaim their treasure from the [[dragon]], Smaug. After much adventure they finally make it to the dragon's lair. In the end Bilbo returns home with only two sacks of gold and silver for all his trouble. He also finds a mysterious magical ring. This book is a delightful book for children and adults alike. In the chronology of [[Middle-earth]], Tolkien's classic [[The Lord of the Rings]] follows The Hobbit. In Tolkienesque mythology the two books together form the History of the Finding of the One Ring and The War of the Ring as recorded in the Red Book of Westmarch written by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins and preserved for posterity by Samwise Gamgee and his descendants. <ref> [[The Hobbit]] by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin company, 1937. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hobbit, The}}
[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Middle-Earth]]

Mary (mother of Jesus)

2007-05-10T23:47:38Z

All Fish Welcome: tense

[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

The Blessed '''Virgin Mary''' is the mother of Our Lord [[Jesus Christ]]. The veneration of Mary is an essential belief of the [[Catholic Church]]. Mary is also venerated by Eastern [[Orthodox Church]] and Anglo-Catholicism. This veneration could take the form of prayer for intercession with her Son, Jesus.

In the Gospels of [[Matthew]] and [[Luke]], Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Judea to Mary, who at the time was a virgin, by the [[Holy Spirit]]. The Gospel of Matthew describes Mary as a virgin who fulfilled the prophecy of [[Isaiah]] 7:14. The Gospel of Luke relates that the angel Gabriel visited Mary in order to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38).

In 1950, Pope Pius XII formally declared to be dogma the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary.

== Marian devotions ==

* Hail Mary
* Salve Regina (Hail, Holy Queen)
* Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary
* Mary, Mother of Grace

The Rosary combines vocal prayer and meditation centered around sequences of reciting the Lord's Prayer followed by ten recitations of the "Hail Mary" prayer and a single recitation of "Glory Be to the Father".

== See also ==

*[[Mary Magdalene]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Our Lady of Guadalupe]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Wizard

2007-05-10T23:43:38Z

All Fish Welcome: sp

A '''Wizard''' is a person that possesses, or claims to possess, [[occult]] or magical powers. It is derived from the Middle English word for 'wise.' Wizards are condemned by the [[Bible]]:

''"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people."''<ref>''Leviticus 20:6'', KJV, although this verse refers more properly to "those who would seek special knowledge through the spirits of the dead, whether the dead in general or dead relatives in particular" (NET, Leviticus 19, note 52).</ref>

== Wizards in fiction ==

The quintessential wizard is Gandalf, in the works of [[J.R.R. Tolkien]], who is revealed to be the Maia Olorin, an angelic being sent from the far West with a human body and the power to inspire the good people of [[Middle-earth]] to great deeds resisting the evil of Sauron. In the [[Harry Potter]] books, all males with magic powers are called wizards, but the head schoolmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, is a classic wizard who resembles Gandalf in many ways. In the science fiction Gaean Trilogy by John Varley, Cirocco Jones, although female, is the Wizard of the living world of Gaea, with powers of life and death over the Titanides.

== See also ==
*[[Witch]]
*[[Harry Potter]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:culture]]

Wizard

2007-05-10T23:42:09Z

All Fish Welcome:

A '''Wizard''' is a person that possesses, or claims to possess, [[occult]] or magical powers. It is derived from the Middle English word for 'wise.' Wizards are condemned by the [[Bible]]:

''"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people."''<ref>''Leviticus 20:6'', KJV, although this verse refers more properly to "those who would seek special knowledge through the spirits of the dead, whether the dead in general or dead relatives in particular" (NET, Levitucs 19, note 52).</ref>

== Wizards in fiction ==

The quintessential wizard is Gandalf, in the works of [[J.R.R. Tolkien]], who is revealed to be the Maia Olorin, an angelic being sent from the far West with a human body and the power to inspire the good people of [[Middle-earth]] to great deeds resisting the evil of Sauron. In the [[Harry Potter]] books, all males with magic powers are called wizards, but the head schoolmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, is a classic wizard who resembles Gandalf in many ways. In the science fiction Gaean Trilogy by John Varley, Cirocco Jones, although female, is the Wizard of the living world of Gaea, with powers of life and death over the Titanides.

== See also ==
*[[Witch]]
*[[Harry Potter]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:culture]]

Talk:Mexicans

2007-05-10T04:26:09Z

All Fish Welcome:

Shouldn't this article be merged with Mexico and state something like ''People who live in Mexico are called Mexicans''?--'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 23:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not all people who live in Mexico are Mexicans, and not all Mexicans live in Mexico.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Russia

2007-05-10T04:23:27Z

All Fish Welcome:

I don't think Russian Federation belongs in the Cat:Former countries; it is the offical name of the Russia today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Do you mean to say Russia was not a constituent of the USSR? Or that the Russian Federation as constituted in 1993 (IIRC) is not the successor to the Russian Soviet Federated Social Republic?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Russia

2007-05-10T04:20:28Z

All Fish Welcome: added category

'''The Russian Federation''' (Russian: Российская Федерация, ''Rossiyskaya Federatsiya''), commonly referred to as "Russia", is the largest of the [[earth]]'s countries and has the sixth largest population. It is known for its cold winters and harsh weather. Russia is a [[federal government|federation]], consisting of a number of constituent entities. Nonetheless, the centralized government is relatively strong, led by President [[Vladimir Putin]], who has nationalized the nation's energy companies and has been accused of bringing autocratic, anti-democratic tendencies to office. The capital of Russia is Moscow.

Russia has only been conquered once in the winter, by the famous [[Mongol]] [[Ghengis Khan]]. [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]], [[Napoleon Bonaparte|Napoleon]] and many other famous military geniuses have tried to conquer it during the winter but all failed. This phenomenon is known as [[General Winter]]. Germany in [[World War I]] did declare peace with Russia in a treaty favorable to the Germans (often considered to be humiliating to Russia) at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but did not actually conquer the country.

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Former Soviet Countries]]

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T21:57:27Z

All Fish Welcome:

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This site might just have moved beyond satire. Vossy, my man, I ask you this question in all sincerity: ''why'' would God care? I reckon coveting your neighbour's new patio furniture is probably naughtier than this. Anyone up for a game of the Seven Most Trivial Sins? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Not trying to be positive ==

This is an encyclopedia article, not a Jack Chick tract. You don't have to include a Plan of Salvation with every article that describes an alleged sin. Insofar as a sin is purely a religious transgression, condemnation of cross-dressing as a sin belongs in a section titled "Religious Views on Cross-Dressing" or something like that. If you do quote the Bible, you really must specify which translation you're quoting. If it's your own translation, it might be helpful to indicate where you've strayed from the text -- the text you used renders the Tetragrammaton as "Lord," but doesn't use the usual typographic conventions to set it apart from any other adonai or kurios. Finally, don't address the reader in an article. You're describing something, not declaiming it.

Last, but not least, this article needs pictures. I'd supply one of myself, but my gown is at the dry cleaner's.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:And so it is done. I even used a good Evangelical Bible for the Deuteronomy quote. Unfortunately, the CSS for small caps doesn't seem to work here.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ha! That lasted all of five minutes. This article is once again a joke in poor taste. And of course the reverting editor didn't bother explaining his rationale in the summary line ''or'' on the Talk Page. Maybe I should just keep fixing this thing until someone can give me a good, solid reason why we need a Jack Chick-style Plan of Salvation here?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:57, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Transvestite==
Isn't there a difference between cross-dressing and being a transvestite? I think this article speaks more about Transvestitism (sexual gratification from wearing the clothes of the members of the opposite sex) than about the wacky antics of Monty Python or early Western theatre when women weren't allowed to act. Anybody else? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T21:56:01Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Not trying to be positive */

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This site might just have moved beyond satire. Vossy, my man, I ask you this question in all sincerity: ''why'' would God care? I reckon coveting your neighbour's new patio furniture is probably naughtier than this. Anyone up for a game of the Seven Most Trivial Sins? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Not trying to be positive ==

This is an encyclopedia article, not a Jack Chick tract. You don't have to include a Plan of Salvation with every article that describes an alleged sin. Insofar as a sin is purely a religious transgression, condemnation of cross-dressing as a sin belongs in a section titled "Religious Views on Cross-Dressing" or something like that. If you do quote the Bible, you really must specify which translation you're quoting. If it's your own translation, it might be helpful to indicate where you've strayed from the text -- the text you used renders the Tetragrammaton as "Lord," but doesn't use the usual typographic conventions to set it apart from any other adonai or kurios. Finally, don't address the reader in an article. You're describing something, not declaiming it.

Last, but not least, this article needs pictures. I'd supply one of myself, but my gown is at the dry cleaner's.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:And so it is done. I even used a good Evangelical Bible for the Deuteronomy quote. Unfortunately, the CSS for small caps doesn't seem to work here.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ha! That lasted all of five minutes. This article is once again a joke in poor taste.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Transvestite==
Isn't there a difference between cross-dressing and being a transvestite? I think this article speaks more about Transvestitism (sexual gratification from wearing the clothes of the members of the opposite sex) than about the wacky antics of Monty Python or early Western theatre when women weren't allowed to act. Anybody else? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Light

2007-05-09T21:52:32Z

All Fish Welcome:

It seems absolutely crazy that the only References on this article are to articles on the Answers in Genesis website?!!! [[User:50something|50something]]

== Cosmic Rays? ==

Is it proper to list cosmic rays in the EM spectrum? See [http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_cr.html#spectrum].--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T21:45:53Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Not trying to be positive */

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This site might just have moved beyond satire. Vossy, my man, I ask you this question in all sincerity: ''why'' would God care? I reckon coveting your neighbour's new patio furniture is probably naughtier than this. Anyone up for a game of the Seven Most Trivial Sins? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Not trying to be positive ==

This is an encyclopedia article, not a Jack Chick tract. You don't have to include a Plan of Salvation with every article that describes an alleged sin. Insofar as a sin is purely a religious transgression, condemnation of cross-dressing as a sin belongs in a section titled "Religious Views on Cross-Dressing" or something like that. If you do quote the Bible, you really must specify which translation you're quoting. If it's your own translation, it might be helpful to indicate where you've strayed from the text -- the text you used renders the Tetragrammaton as "Lord," but doesn't use the usual typographic conventions to set it apart from any other adonai or kurios. Finally, don't address the reader in an article. You're describing something, not declaiming it.

Last, but not least, this article needs pictures. I'd supply one of myself, but my gown is at the dry cleaner's.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:And so it is done. I even used a good Evangelical Bible for the Deuteronomy quote. Unfortunately, the CSS for small caps doesn't seem to work here.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Transvestite==
Isn't there a difference between cross-dressing and being a transvestite? I think this article speaks more about Transvestitism (sexual gratification from wearing the clothes of the members of the opposite sex) than about the wacky antics of Monty Python or early Western theatre when women weren't allowed to act. Anybody else? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 17:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T21:35:40Z

All Fish Welcome:

Talk:Geologic system

2007-05-04T01:41:39Z

All Fish Welcome:

== Article name==
Any opinions on which is the correct (or better) name?
* Google has 53,900 hits on English pages for "Geologic Column".
* Google has 24,600 hits on English pages for "Geological Column" (the present title).
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Scratch that; I've decided on a different name altogether. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Me too, but due to the Kommandments, I can't print it here. This article is just garbage. Although the hilarious, obligatory YEC (why isn't this called YECapedia?) "perspective" is, I guess, par for the course, where is the ''article''? What do we learn when we read this? Almost nothing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That's a very helpful comment, Human. Not. Rather than just mock and criticise, how about suggesting how it could be improved (with specifics), or point out precisely what is wrong with it. To just dismiss it as having a YEC perspective indicates that rather than there being anything factually wrong with it, you simply have an ideological issue with it. If so, that's your problem, not the article's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It's not the presentation of the YEC perspective that bothers me, I expect that, but I would expect to see more thorough detail about what the scientific consensus is about the column/system itself. Perhaps a listing of the major periods and which rocks represent them, and why this is claimed? I might have a book around here somewher that lists them, I'll see if I can cobble together a decent paragraph or two. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::As I said, your comment was not very helpful. So unhelpful that it failed to convey to me what your actual issue with the article was. However, now that's been clarified, I agree that it could/should be expanded to actually document the periods, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Shouldn't the article name be geological system
::::*Google has 19,800,000 hits for geological system
::::*Google has 1,120,000 hits for geologic system
::::--[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 02:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps. I chose the name to be neutral, as some creationists question the reality of the geological column, and "geological timescale", another common one, presumes the reality of the uniformitarian dating system. I came across this name ("geologic system") as an alternative term, so went with it. Most of the early Google hits for both terms seem to be referring to something else, so whether geological system is used more than geologic system ''for this concept'' is still an unknown. I'm open to suggestions, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"some creationists question the reality of the geological column"''

::::::I do hope not, as that would be on a par with believing the Earth is flat, i.e. in direct contradiction of obvious reality; It's real enough and directly observable in many places (the Grand Canyon for example). What creationists have is a different explanation for how it came about. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 05:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I'm not sure what the best wording would be, and they don't question that the rocks exist, but they are questioning more than just how it formed. I ''think'' they question that there really are common strata that can be identified world-wide, or something along those lines. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Table ==

Nice job, I like it. Can there be consensus on whether a fourth column can be added labelled "uniformitarian system dates" or something like that? [[User:Human|Human]] 13:39, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cenozoic/cainozoic ==

Cainozoic was ok by me in the quote, to keep it accurate. But the modern name for the period is Cenozoic, and the table should reflect this.

Just as, in the table, it should say Paleozoic, dropping the "a". [[User:Human|Human]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Crazy Superscripts==
"Conservative," why do you think it's so important to litter the text with long strings of superscript numbers? Are you trying to adhere to hard science style? That's commendable, but not really appropriate for a general subject encyclopedia. Or a wiki. The brackets attached to the numbers make them more visually intrusive than they would be in print, and having multiple consecutive hyperlinks is bad form from a usability standpoint, especially if they have little or no semantic meaning. A sentence like, "These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. [10][11][12][13][14]," would be very difficult to parse with a screen reader, for instance. It also looks very ugly in non-graphical browsers.

In any case, you didn't describe your decision to revert in the "Summary" line. I await your comments now.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 21:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Geologic system

2007-05-04T01:05:28Z

All Fish Welcome: /* Biblography */ sp

The '''geologic system''' is a conceptual arrangement of rock formations around the world meshed together into a single, unbroken record of earth's past.<ref>Wile, Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> It is also known as the '''geologic column''' or '''geologic timescale'''.

Development of the system was begun in the late 18th century, and the original divisions were Primary, Secondary, [[Tertiary]], and [[Quaternary]].
Later, dates were assigned to the divisions according to uniformitarian beliefs about the age of the Earth, and the sections were further divided and subdivided.
The system is now divided into [[eon (geology)|eons]], [[era (geology)|eras]], [[period (geology)|periods]], and [[epoch (geology)|series or epochs]].

Some [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationary]] geologists use the nomenclature of the system whilst not accepting the uniformitarian dates attached to the system which places the age of the earth as being billions of years old.<ref>"Creationists use the same naming system, although do not accept the uniformitarian belief that the geologic column represents eons of time", Batten, Don, quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280 More nonsense from Professor Plimer]
*Morris, 1973.
*http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54
*http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> Other young earth creationists assert that geological column does not exist and cite secular scientists who state the argumentation advocating the geological column involves circular reasoning.<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
*http://iwhome.com/spiritualquest/tracts/dp-geol-.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a geological system that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the uniformitarian assumptions behind the dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. In addition, [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] scientists point out that catastophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm
*http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
*http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm
*http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm
*http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html
*http://globalflood.org/</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomoly|anomolies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm
*http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]]/unconformaties the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The secular science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf
*http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm
*http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref> All young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp
*http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, these scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp
*http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref>

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] explains the relationship between sections of the geologic system and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] belief:
{{QuoteBox|The naming of the eras, in particular, now reflects evolutionary beliefs ([[Paleozoic|Palaeozoic]] / [[Mesozoic]] / [[Cenozoic|Cainozoic]]), but the period names ([[Ordovician]], [[Silurian]], [[Cambrian]], [[Cretaceous]], etc.) still generally do not. Thus, the naming of the geologic systems is not tied to the assigned ages and assignment of an ore body to a particular geologic system does not necessarily define its absolute age.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280 More nonsense from Professor Plimer]</ref>}}

== The system ==
(NB: The following table is not complete.)
{| class="wikitable"
!Era
!Period
!Epoch
|-
| rowspan="7" |[[Cainozoic]]
| rowspan="4" |[[Neogene]]
|Holocene
|-
|Pleistocene
|-
|Pliocene
|-
|Miocene
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Paleogene]]
|Oligocene
|-
|Eocene
|-
|Paleocene
|-
|rowspan="8"|[[Mesozoic]]
|rowspan="2"|[[Cretaceous]]
|Late
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Jurassic]]
|Late
|-
|Middle
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Triassic]]
|Late
|-
|Middle
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="6"|[[Palaeozoic]]
|[[Permian]]
|-
|[[Carboniferous]]
|-
|[[Devonian]]
|-
|[[Silurian]]
|-
|[[Ordovician]]
|-
|[[Cambrian]]
|}

== Bibliography ==

* Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' (6), August 1973.
* Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] (TrueOrigins.org).
* Mortensen, Terry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1579 The origin of old-earth geology and its ramifications for life in the 21st century], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(1):22–26, April 2004.
* [http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (AllAboutCreation.org).

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Paraconformity

2007-05-04T01:01:13Z

All Fish Welcome: ref elements require a references element

A paraconformity (sometimes called a unconformity) is <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref> Young earth creationists see paraconformaties as a serious challenge to the old earth [[uniformatarian]] [[geology]] [[paradigm]]. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref>

[[William Corliss|William R.Corliss]], a cataloguer of scientific anomalies, wrote regarding paraconformaties the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category: Geology]]

Geologic system

2007-05-04T00:58:09Z

All Fish Welcome: Collapsed multiple notes for readability

The '''geologic system''' is a conceptual arrangement of rock formations around the world meshed together into a single, unbroken record of earth's past.<ref>Wile, Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> It is also known as the '''geologic column''' or '''geologic timescale'''.

Development of the system was begun in the late 18th century, and the original divisions were Primary, Secondary, [[Tertiary]], and [[Quaternary]].
Later, dates were assigned to the divisions according to uniformitarian beliefs about the age of the Earth, and the sections were further divided and subdivided.
The system is now divided into [[eon (geology)|eons]], [[era (geology)|eras]], [[period (geology)|periods]], and [[epoch (geology)|series or epochs]].

Some [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationary]] geologists use the nomenclature of the system whilst not accepting the uniformitarian dates attached to the system which places the age of the earth as being billions of years old.<ref>"Creationists use the same naming system, although do not accept the uniformitarian belief that the geologic column represents eons of time", Batten, Don, quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280 More nonsense from Professor Plimer]
*Morris, 1973.
*http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54
*http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> Other young earth creationists assert that geological column does not exist and cite secular scientists who state the argumentation advocating the geological column involves circular reasoning.<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
*http://iwhome.com/spiritualquest/tracts/dp-geol-.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a geological system that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the uniformitarian assumptions behind the dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. In addition, [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] scientists point out that catastophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm
*http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
*http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm
*http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm
*http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html
*http://globalflood.org/</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomoly|anomolies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm
*http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]]/unconformaties the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The secular science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf
*http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm
*http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref> All young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp
*http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, these scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp
*http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref>

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] explains the relationship between sections of the geologic system and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] belief:
{{QuoteBox|The naming of the eras, in particular, now reflects evolutionary beliefs ([[Paleozoic|Palaeozoic]] / [[Mesozoic]] / [[Cenozoic|Cainozoic]]), but the period names ([[Ordovician]], [[Silurian]], [[Cambrian]], [[Cretaceous]], etc.) still generally do not. Thus, the naming of the geologic systems is not tied to the assigned ages and assignment of an ore body to a particular geologic system does not necessarily define its absolute age.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280 More nonsense from Professor Plimer]</ref>}}

== The system ==
(NB: The following table is not complete.)
{| class="wikitable"
!Era
!Period
!Epoch
|-
| rowspan="7" |[[Cainozoic]]
| rowspan="4" |[[Neogene]]
|Holocene
|-
|Pleistocene
|-
|Pliocene
|-
|Miocene
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Paleogene]]
|Oligocene
|-
|Eocene
|-
|Paleocene
|-
|rowspan="8"|[[Mesozoic]]
|rowspan="2"|[[Cretaceous]]
|Late
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Jurassic]]
|Late
|-
|Middle
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Triassic]]
|Late
|-
|Middle
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="6"|[[Palaeozoic]]
|[[Permian]]
|-
|[[Carboniferous]]
|-
|[[Devonian]]
|-
|[[Silurian]]
|-
|[[Ordovician]]
|-
|[[Cambrian]]
|}

== Biblography ==

* Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' (6), August 1973.
* Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] (TrueOrigins.org).
* Mortensen, Terry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1579 The origin of old-earth geology and its ramifications for life in the 21st century], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(1):22–26, April 2004.
* [http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (AllAboutCreation.org).

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Geologic system

2007-05-04T00:44:56Z

All Fish Welcome: sp

The '''geologic system''' is a conceptual arrangement of rock formations around the world meshed together into a single, unbroken record of earth's past.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> It is also known as the '''geologic column''' or '''geologic timescale'''.

Development of the system was begun in the late 18th century, and the original divisions were Primary, Secondary, [[Tertiary]], and [[Quaternary]].
Later, dates were assigned to the divisions according to uniformitarian beliefs about the age of the Earth, and the sections were further divided and subdivided.
The system is now divided into [[eon (geology)|eons]], [[era (geology)|eras]], [[period (geology)|periods]], and [[epoch (geology)|series or epochs]].

Some [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationary]] geologists use the nomenclature of the system whilst not accepting the uniformitarian dates attached to the system which places the age of the earth as being billions of years old.<ref>"Creationists use the same naming system, although do not accept the uniformitarian belief that the geologic column represents eons of time", Batten, Don, quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280 More nonsense from Professor Plimer]</ref><ref>Morris, 1973.</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm</ref> Other young earth creationists assert that geological column does not exist and cite secular scientists who state the argumentation advocating the geological column involves circular reasoning. <ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp</ref><ref>http://iwhome.com/spiritualquest/tracts/dp-geol-.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a geological system that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the uniformitarian assumptions behind the dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. In addition, [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] scientists point out that catastophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref> These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> In addition, creationists also assert that old earth uniformitarian geology has numerous [[Anomoly|anomolies]]. For example, creationists cite the work of [[William R. Corliss]] who catalogued numerous anomalies in the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]. <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> Corliss wrote regarding [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]]/unconformaties the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219. <ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The secular science journal [[New Scientist]] wrote regarding Corliss's work the following: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging." <ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref> Young earth creationist scientists assert that paraconformaties pose a serious challenge to the old earth uniformitarian geology paradigm. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref> All young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/1842/</ref> In addition, these scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22</ref>

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] explains the relationship between sections of the geologic system and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] belief:
{{QuoteBox|The naming of the eras, in particular, now reflects evolutionary beliefs ([[Paleozoic|Palaeozoic]] / [[Mesozoic]] / [[Cenozoic|Cainozoic]]), but the period names ([[Ordovician]], [[Silurian]], [[Cambrian]], [[Cretaceous]], etc.) still generally do not. Thus, the naming of the geologic systems is not tied to the assigned ages and assignment of an ore body to a particular geologic system does not necessarily define its absolute age.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280 More nonsense from Professor Plimer]</ref>}}

== The system ==
(NB: The following table is not complete.)
{| class="wikitable"
!Era
!Period
!Epoch
|-
| rowspan="7" |[[Cainozoic]]
| rowspan="4" |[[Neogene]]
|Holocene
|-
|Pleistocene
|-
|Pliocene
|-
|Miocene
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Paleogene]]
|Oligocene
|-
|Eocene
|-
|Paleocene
|-
|rowspan="8"|[[Mesozoic]]
|rowspan="2"|[[Cretaceous]]
|Late
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Jurassic]]
|Late
|-
|Middle
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="3"|[[Triassic]]
|Late
|-
|Middle
|-
|Early
|-
|rowspan="6"|[[Palaeozoic]]
|[[Permian]]
|-
|[[Carboniferous]]
|-
|[[Devonian]]
|-
|[[Silurian]]
|-
|[[Ordovician]]
|-
|[[Cambrian]]
|}

== Biblography ==

* Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' (6), August 1973.
* Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] (TrueOrigins.org).
* Mortensen, Terry, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1579 The origin of old-earth geology and its ramifications for life in the 21st century], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(1):22–26, April 2004.
* [http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (AllAboutCreation.org).

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Back to the Future

2007-05-04T00:42:23Z

All Fish Welcome: He was a doctor, right? I've gotten in trouble for these things before....

A popular movie from 1985 in which the main character Marty McFly (Micahel J. Fox) goes back in [[time]] to 1955 with the help of Doctor Emmet Brown and a Delorean time machine. It led to two sequels and an animated television series.