https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Aloysius 2026-10-01T03:35:32Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Photosynthesis&diff=155173 2007-05-11T10:36:39Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The process by which [[plant]]s and some archaebacteria use the energy of sunlight and certain [[chemical]]s ([[carbon dioxide]] and [[water]]) to produce their own food.&lt;ref&gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. <br /> <br /> 2000&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]<br /> [[Category:Botany]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Photosynthesis&diff=155172 2007-05-11T10:36:14Z

<p>Aloysius: because plants were latecomers to the photosynthetic scene</p> <hr /> <div>The process by which [[plant]]s and certain archaebacteria use the energy of sunlight and certain [[chemical]]s ([[carbon dioxide]] and [[water]]) to produce its own food.&lt;ref&gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. <br /> <br /> 2000&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]<br /> [[Category:Botany]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kiwi&diff=151164 2007-05-09T14:30:04Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Kiwi''' are any of the three species of small flightless birds [[endemic]] to [[New Zealand]] of the genus ''Apteryx'' (the only genus in family ''Apterygidae''). At around the size of a domestic chicken, kiwi are by far the smallest living [[ratite]]s, although in comparison to their body size their egg (weighing as much as a quarter of the adult bird's weight) is proportionately the largest of all birds. Kiwi are nocturnal and live mainly by foraging with their long beaks for earthworms and other invertebrates in leaf litter, which they find using their sense of smell which is unusually well-developed for a bird.<br /> <br /> All three kiwi species are protected and much reduced in range, though the large size of their eggs does offer some protection against the depradations of [[rat]]s, compared to other ground-nesting native birds such as the [[kakapo]] and [[takahe]].<br /> <br /> The kiwi is a national symbol of New Zealand, and the term is often used to describe a person from New Zealand. <br /> <br /> Creationist scientists have determined this bird also has secret teleportation abilities, as this is the only way this poor slow-moving flightless bird could have got over a sea and halfway around the world to Noah's ark on time.{{fact}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Birds]]<br /> [[Category:Flightless Birds]]<br /> [[Category:New Zealand]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kiwi&diff=151160 2007-05-09T14:28:04Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Kiwi''' are any of the three species of small flightless birds [[endemic]] to [[New Zealand]] of the genus ''Apteryx'' (the only genus in family ''Apterygidae''). At around the size of a domestic chicken, kiwi are by far the smallest living [[ratite]]s, although in comparison to their body size their egg (weighing as much as a quater of the adult bird's weight) is proportionately the largest of all birds. Kiwi are nocturnal and live mainly by foraging with their long beaks for earthworms and other invertebrates in leaf litter.<br /> <br /> All three kiwi species are protected and much reduced in range, though the large size of their eggs does offer some protection against the depradations of [[rat]]s, compared to other ground-nesting native birds such as the [[kakapo]] and [[takahe]].<br /> <br /> The kiwi is a national symbol of New Zealand, and the term is often used to describe a person from New Zealand. <br /> <br /> Creationist scientists have determined this bird also has secret teleportation abilities, as this is the only way this poor slow-moving flightless bird could have got over a sea and halfway around the world to Noah's ark on time.{{fact}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Birds]]<br /> [[Category:Flightless Birds]]<br /> [[Category:New Zealand]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Neutron&diff=151111 2007-05-09T13:55:33Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>== Formation of neutrons ==<br /> <br /> Neutrons can be created as part of Beta decay. There are three different types of beta decay - electron emission, electron capture, and positron emission (its theoretically possible to have positron capture too, but that isn't seen in nature). The second and third types of beta decay convert a proton into a neutron. In a PET scan one of: Carbon 11, Nitrogen 13, Oxygen 15, or Fluorine 18 is used. When Carbon 11 undergoes beta decay via emission of a positron it becomes Boron 11 -- a proton has become a neutron. In situations where the atom is not energetic enough to emit a proton, you can have electron capture such as Aluminum 26 becoming Magnesium 26. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Fair enough. I'm just an A-level student, don't know much, sorry. :p [[User:Vimescarrot|Vimescarrot]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I would recommend researching something fully before posting an article. One would hope that this is not something that the Bible would try to refute. As such, if you head over to a place such as Wikipedia and look up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron Neutron], you will see the Stability section which explains how neutrons are created. Research, then write. To do otherwise presents incorrect information that not only does a disservice to you (believing and presenting the incorrect information) but also propagates that incorrect idea to others reading (some claim this is to be a source of information for other school students) along with being something of a joke to people who are familiar with the information. There are enough silly ideas out there that new ones don't need to be created. Remember, research first, then write. If you are writing something about science, don't be afraid to go to a page that is written by someone who understands that science and try to digest it. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == its theoretically possible to have positron capture too, but that isn't seen in nature ==<br /> <br /> It's a while since I studied physics, but wouldn't some people argue that positron capture is the same as electron emission? Anyway, the article says that a neutron is the same mass as an electron and proton combined, but that's not actually true is it? [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hydrophobic&diff=151104 2007-05-09T13:48:17Z

<p>Aloysius: alkanes is a word</p> <hr /> <div>Lacking any affinity or attraction to [[water]]. The ability to repel water from one's molecular structure.<br /> <br /> This is caused by the polarity of water molecules due to the electron affinity of the oxygen atom. Hydrophobic molecules tend to be neutral and non polar, and avoid contact with polar molecules, like water. If immersed in water, hydrophobic molecules will clump together to decrease the total surface area that is in contact with the water.<br /> <br /> Prominent examples of hydrophobic molecules are oils and fats, these are in addition to alkanes. Any greasy substance usually will also be hydrophobic.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Chemistry]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Cotton&diff=151016 2007-05-09T11:41:00Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>''The Bible forbids the wearing cotton mixed with polyester.''<br /> <br /> What on earth are you talking about? Leviticus 19:19 reads &quot;...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.&quot; Linen - not cotton, or polyester, and wool, not cotton, or polyester.<br /> <br /> It depends what translation you are reading, doesn't it? The American Standard Version has ''neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.'' and the New International Version has ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.''<br /> <br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19&amp;version=8<br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&amp;version=31;<br /> [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Clearly, different translations will have differnt types of cloth mentioned, however, I think we can all be sure that polyester is not one of them!!! ''unsigned comment by Trajsmith''<br /> <br /> I think 'kinds of stuff' is pretty all-encompassing. Or are you suggesting that polyester isn't included in 'kinds of material'? It seems that God has a problem with mixed-weave fabrics and to suggest that polycotton isn't included in that is somewhat disingenuous. Like those Mormons who don't drink tea or coffee but will drink Coke, because the Angel Moroni expressly forbade the drinking of the first two, but Coke wasn't mentioned. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:22, 9 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Although I suppose that's slightly different. If Moroni had banned drinking caffeinated beverages and some people still drank Coke claiming that because Coke hadn't been invented then the angel couldn't have meant to include it, then that would be analogous to Christians wearing polycotton. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 07:41, 9 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==and God willing, will be for a very long time==<br /> <br /> This doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> With all this carrying on about the Bible banning something that wasn't invented for a few thousand years, no one picked up on the &quot;annual&quot; &quot;perennial&quot; cock up. I'll fix it.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Cotton&diff=150965 2007-05-09T10:22:21Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>''The Bible forbids the wearing cotton mixed with polyester.''<br /> <br /> What on earth are you talking about? Leviticus 19:19 reads &quot;...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.&quot; Linen - not cotton, or polyester, and wool, not cotton, or polyester.<br /> <br /> It depends what translation you are reading, doesn't it? The American Standard Version has ''neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.'' and the New International Version has ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.''<br /> <br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19&amp;version=8<br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&amp;version=31;<br /> [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Clearly, different translations will have differnt types of cloth mentioned, however, I think we can all be sure that polyester is not one of them!!! ''unsigned comment by Trajsmith''<br /> <br /> I think 'kinds of stuff' is pretty all-encompassing. Or are you suggesting that polyester isn't included in 'kinds of material'? It seems that God has a problem with mixed-weave fabrics and to suggest that polycotton isn't included in that is somewhat disingenuous. Like those Mormons who don't drink tea or coffee but will drink Coke, because the Angel Moroni expressly forbade the drinking of the first two, but Coke wasn't mentioned. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:22, 9 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==and God willing, will be for a very long time==<br /> <br /> This doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> With all this carrying on about the Bible banning something that wasn't invented for a few thousand years, no one picked up on the &quot;annual&quot; &quot;perennial&quot; cock up. I'll fix it.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143038 2007-05-04T16:11:08Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, ''[[Escherichia coli]]''.<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have easier access to DNA compared with eukaryotes. They generally have efficient genomes, with little sequence other than coding sequence or regulatory sequence. Transcription is by just one class of RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143036 2007-05-04T16:10:27Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, [[''Escherichia coli'']].<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have easier access to DNA compared with eukaryotes. They generally have efficient genomes, with little sequence other than coding sequence or regulatory sequence. Transcription is by just one class of RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143035 2007-05-04T16:10:07Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, [''Escherichia coli''].<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have easier access to DNA compared with eukaryotes. They generally have efficient genomes, with little sequence other than coding sequence or regulatory sequence. Transcription is by just one class of RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143033 2007-05-04T16:09:48Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, ''[Escherichia coli]''.<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have easier access to DNA compared with eukaryotes. They generally have efficient genomes, with little sequence other than coding sequence or regulatory sequence. Transcription is by just one class of RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143032 2007-05-04T16:09:11Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, Escherichia coli.<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have easier access to DNA compared with eukaryotes. They generally have efficient genomes, with little sequence other than coding sequence or regulatory sequence. Transcription is by just one class of RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143031 2007-05-04T16:08:51Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, Escherichia coli.<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have easier access to DNA compared with eukaryotes. They generally have efficient genomes, with little sequence other than coding sequence or regulatory sequence. Transcription is by just one class of RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143001 2007-05-04T15:37:59Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, Escherichia coli.<br /> <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have direct access to DNA. They have a junk-free genome, transcribed by just one RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prokaryotes&diff=143000 2007-05-04T15:37:43Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>The structure of a prokaryote is very much simpler than that of a eukaryote. There are no endomembranes, endosymbionts, nucleus or cytoskeleton. The DNA is carried on the genophore, a circular chromosome, in a ill defined area of the cytosol called the nucleoid. The chromosome is attached to the cell membrane during cell division (fission), frequently at a point called the mesosome.<br /> <br /> #πρό-καρυον (pro-karyon) - before kernel. <br /> #No nucleus - free circular genophore. <br /> #'Simple' rotating motor-type flagellum. <br /> #Cell division by fission, genophore attached to plasmalemma by mesosome. <br /> #Few membrane-bound organelles, no double-membrane bound organelles. <br /> #They are 'small' because diffusion limits the rate of transport across the cell - 1 μm. <br /> [[Image:Bacterial_cell.png|center||Prokaryotes are characterised by the lack of a nucleus and membranes bound organelles.]]<br /> The cytosol contains oil droplets, food reserves and the 70S ribosomes, and is surrounded by a plasmalemma. In Gram negative bacteria, a further outer membrane surrounds the plasmalemma, with a thin cell wall and periplasmic space trapped between them. In Gram positive bacteria, there is no outer membrane, and the cell wall is thicker. The cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan and various organic acids in Eubacteria. Bacteria have flagella, but they are simple proteinaceous strands attached to a rotary motor, completely dissimilar to the complex eukaryotic undulipodium. Membranes may be present in the cell, as in the thylakoids of the Cyanobacteria. The cytosol may also contain various episomes (small circular chromosomes), some called plasmids, and others called (bacterio)phages, which are bacterial viruses.<br /> <br /> Prokaryotes are extraordinarily diverse:<br /> <br /> <br /> Proteobacteria - Gram-negative, two cell membranes, hugely diverse, Escherichia coli. <br /> Firmicutes and Actinobacteria - Gram-positive, thick peptidoglycan cell wall. <br /> Spirochaetes - helical bacteria. <br /> <br /> Prokaryotic DNA lacks histones (packaging proteins), although other packaging proteins are present, and molecules have direct access to DNA. They have a junk-free genome, transcribed by just one RNA polymerase. Transcription leads to translation with no intermediate processing, which allows several genes to be encoded in a single transcriptional unit (a polycistron). They have small (70S) ribosomes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:biology]]<br /> [[Category:microbiology]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Prokaryotes&diff=142999 2007-05-04T15:36:06Z

<p>Aloysius: New page: I think some of this is slightly outdated. Archaea are not now regarded as prokaryotes but as a separate domain on their own. And cyanobacteria are classed as archaea, not prokaryotes. ~...</p> <hr /> <div>I think some of this is slightly outdated. Archaea are not now regarded as prokaryotes but as a separate domain on their own. And cyanobacteria are classed as archaea, not prokaryotes. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_science&diff=140339 2007-05-02T15:45:21Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>== Irony ==<br /> <br /> Isn't it it sort of ironic to reference a creationist on the 'science' page?<br /> <br /> :For extra kicks: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=Apologia+Educational+Ministries&amp;fulltext=Search How often Apologie Educational Ministries are used as reference] ;) I only made that search after a few blogs pointed it out. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == kidding right? ==<br /> <br /> Conservatives referencing science! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!<br /> <br /> :[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Woah!!! PoV. How about &quot;(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous&quot;. If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]<br /> <br /> I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a &quot;The current paradigm is completely wrong&quot; paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I'm not assigning sinister motives, but I do recall multiple instances of scientists whose papers were rejected - for reasons other than shoddy research or poor writing. ''Science'' and ''Nature'' do it all the time. And journal editors have been forced to resign for daring to publish well-written, carefully researched studies. <br /> <br /> :This is nothing new. The history of science is littered with it. I'm reading [[Farley Mowat]]'s 1963 book ''Never Cry Wolf'', in which he exposes prejudice in the scientific establishment in Canada. People lose their jobs when they upset the applecart, especially when they use the leverage of facts (see [[Whistleblower]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> There seems to be a common fallacy that scientists are all about maintaining the status quo. But new discoveries are the driving force in science. New discoveries are what win Nobel prizes, and get big research grants, and get papers in prestigious journals. The peer review/paradigm system introduces a certain amount of inertia into the system which can be counterproductive (occasionally good research can be rejected initially) but in most instances helps to winnow out anomalous or wrong results. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_science&diff=140309 2007-05-02T15:28:26Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>== Irony ==<br /> <br /> Isn't it it sort of ironic to reference a creationist on the 'science' page?<br /> <br /> :For extra kicks: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=Apologia+Educational+Ministries&amp;fulltext=Search How often Apologie Educational Ministries are used as reference] ;) I only made that search after a few blogs pointed it out. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == kidding right? ==<br /> <br /> Conservatives referencing science! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!<br /> <br /> :[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Woah!!! PoV. How about &quot;(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous&quot;. If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]<br /> <br /> I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a &quot;The current paradigm is completely wrong&quot; paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_science&diff=140111 2007-05-02T13:51:14Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>== Irony ==<br /> <br /> Isn't it it sort of ironic to reference a creationist on the 'science' page?<br /> <br /> :For extra kicks: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=Apologia+Educational+Ministries&amp;fulltext=Search How often Apologie Educational Ministries are used as reference] ;) I only made that search after a few blogs pointed it out. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == kidding right? ==<br /> <br /> Conservatives referencing science! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!<br /> <br /> :[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Woah!!! PoV. How about &quot;(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous&quot;. If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=137074 2007-04-30T19:17:44Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]&lt;/ref&gt;,&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]&lt;/ref&gt; and whales&lt;ref&gt;[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing &quot;leg&quot; bones]&lt;/ref&gt;, the appendix in humans&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.medicinenet.com/appendicitis/article.htm Diagram of appendix and information on appendicitis]&lt;/ref&gt;, the brains of creationists and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight, thus helping the bird survive by requiring less food and energy.<br /> <br /> Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] &lt;/ref&gt; , &lt;ref&gt; [http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/wings/IMAGES/kiwi.jpg Photo of kiwi showing no visible wings] &lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:World_History_Lecture_One&diff=136518 2007-04-30T12:22:40Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> It was fun reading the first part of the article. But how many lies can one man bare? How much explicit nonsense remains funny? After a while it really became scary. Do you realize that innocent kids might read this? They may even believe that this is the truth.That is dangerous. Kids have a right to know the truth, this article sums up about every ill formed historcal view ever created.<br /> <br /> You call scientists ''biased'', have you ever thought about your own bias? Believing in something because someone else beleives it, or because you 'feel it in your heart'. In fact you call me a liar. That is bad, since I am fully sincere. If there were a god, he'd punish you for being so wrecklessly ignorant. This is one of the few moments i wish there were a god. <br /> <br /> You abuse history, that is a very bad thing to do. That is how wars start. That is what causes the death of too many innocent people.<br /> <br /> ---------------------------<br /> <br /> <br /> Europe is filled with beautiful artworks painted on the walls of caves. The dating of these artworks through geological evidence, radiocarbon dating and other evidence clearly places these artworks (and the primitive civilizations that created them) at between 20 and 30 million years old. The artworks reveal complex hunting systems, complex social hierarchies and tool-making. [[User:Popo|Popo]] 23:33, Mar 14, 2007 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Bullflop. Not even atheist scientists claim the cave paintings are 20 to 30 ''million'' years old. That would be millions of years before the apes began walking upright, according to evolutionists. So not only are you wrong about the age of the earth, you can't even get the Darwinist claims right.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 02:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :And I believe they have found writing as far back as 5500 BC in Pakistan.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm]--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 01:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> Oops, misread the article. It is 5500 years old, but nevertheless in Pakistan, not Iraq.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 01:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == I am who I am ==<br /> <br /> You repeat the &quot;I am who I am&quot; thing several times, but do you know any biblical hebrew? YHVH (and no, it's not YHWH, there's no W sound in hebrew, it's a vav) is an unpronounceable word. It's a combination of the past, present, and future forms of the verb &quot;to be&quot;, therefore indicating that God is, always has been, and always will be. The tetragrammaton does NOT mean &quot;I am who I am&quot; or &quot;I am that I am&quot;, &quot;I am that I am&quot; is simply God's response to Moses asking about his name.<br /> <br /> : Your entry is unsigned, and I'd like to learn more. What are you saying YHVH means, in a simple translation???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :How dare you introduce fact? Escpecially delving into linguistics and semantics. ;) [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why is every featured article locked? Now I think I know==<br /> <br /> Ah, why bother, questions are never answered either. Still awaiting proof that Scopes had an effect on the 2000 Presidential election. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Uh, &quot;to calculus (English)&quot;...forgot about Liebniz? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Which one do you want to edit? I can unprotect it for you, if you have a good reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Liebniz was German...just change it to &quot;English and German&quot;. Any idea what grade level this lecture was written for?<br /> :I'll just post the factual errors here -- you decide what to correct. Thanks. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Any source for this? &quot;People were probably smarter than they are today.&quot; Are we talking devolution here? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Glad to see calculus was fixed. Anyway, this: &quot;Indus (IN-dus) Valley: 2900 BC&quot; is incorrect -- it should read 3300 BC. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:37, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :This, &quot;There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form.&quot; is as stupid as saying that there's no good reason it took until 1903 for a heavier-than-air flying machine to be built. Andy, you really might want to do some research into linguistics and the nature and genesis of writing. Also see oral traditions and economics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Uh, no... &quot;language ... [was]] ... created in ancient history&quot;. Language was created in pre-history, ''writing'' was created in ancient history. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Uh, no &quot;There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C.&quot; -- fossil evidence (oh yeah, that's ''bad'')...hmmm, let's think about the cave pictures that we '''know''' are 35K years old? Come on, Andy, why are you lying to children? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Well, what about those cave paintings. Do you know how the date 35K was arrived at?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Yep. Unless you can prove dating methods based on the half-life of certain isotopes to be wrong, you're standing on a crumbling shore. BTW: without looking it up, can you define &quot;half-life&quot;? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The hwut? &quot;Indo-Aryan language&quot; [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;only about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards further yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C&quot; Can I see the math? What were your presumptions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Hmmmm...&quot;Old trees never predate this time either; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old.&quot; But the flood was 1000 years earlier. No sequoias for 1000 years? Besides, sequoias typically live for only 2000-2200 years, dying most frequently of disease or lightning strikes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;No “civilization” has been found that is older than about 3000 B.C.&quot; And yet in the chart immediately following this statement we have Mesopotamia listed at 3500 BC. Hmmm. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: People lived before 3000 B.C. It's the lack of civilizations surviving that I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :And yet Mesopotamia had a full-blown civilisation. What do you mean by surviving? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Cite please: &quot;The dates of these ages are controversial, and historians have a bias for giving them older dates than proven by archaeology.&quot; [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dates==<br /> I noticed one mistake (at least I'm pretty sure it is one). Isn't the 5th Century BC 500-401 not 401-500? The years went backwards until they reached 0, then started counting up. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I fixed it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == uhm... sources? ==<br /> <br /> Maybe it's just me, but how on earth is any of information trustworthy when no sources are mentioned anywhere?<br /> All that is written here could just as well be made up, because there's no way to verify it.<br /> --[[User:Jacobsen|Jacobsen]] 17:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==More dates==<br /> <br /> Is this a logic problem for the home schooled children: spot the inconsistencies in the dates? They just don't hang together. For instance, it claims the writing was invented 400 years before there was any trace of language; the first trace of civilisation was in 3000 B.C., but there are traces of the Mesopotamian civilisation in 3500 B.C., even though there was only one family in 3300 B.C. and so on. Incidentally, how was the age of the cuneiform tablet determined? [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 08:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:World_History_Lecture_Six&diff=136508 2007-04-30T12:14:56Z

<p>Aloysius: New page: ==The New Zealand population survived by growing bananas, coconuts, yams and taro== Where did you get this information from? The New Zealand climate does not support the growth of banana...</p> <hr /> <div>==The New Zealand population survived by growing bananas, coconuts, yams and taro==<br /> <br /> Where did you get this information from? The New Zealand climate does not support the growth of bananas and coconuts. the staple of Maori agriculture was the kumara (sweet potato). I don't think they had pigs either. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 08:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=World_History_Lecture_Six&diff=136506 2007-04-30T12:13:34Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]<br /> <br /> World History<br /> <br /> Sixth Lecture – Middle Ages (the Second Millennium)<br /> <br /> Instructor, Andy Schlafly<br /> <br /> ==Introduction to the Second Millennium (A.D. 1000s)==<br /> <br /> The second millennium began in the 1000s with a century of turmoil as Christianity grew larger and Islam began to challenge it. Two key dates were 1054, when the schism or split occurred between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and 1055, when the Seljuk Turks captured Baghdad in present-day Iraq. Both events set the stage for a big battle between Christian and Moslem forces in Palestine.<br /> <br /> In 1054, the Byzantine empire established its own church, known as the “Eastern Orthodox Church.” This church resulted from the schism in the Roman Catholic Church. The dispute began with a controversy over the popular use of icons and then spread to other issues such as whether priests could marry and whether divorce would be allowed. <br /> <br /> The word “icon” comes from the Greek word “eikon” for “image”. The Eastern Orthodox Church embraced icons and rejected three-dimensional statutes. The Eastern Orthodox Church also allowed its priests to marry, and permitted divorce. The Roman Catholic Church took the opposite position on all three issues. Also, in an Orthodox wedding ceremony there is no exchange of vows between husband and wife. That is considered for them to decide privately.<br /> <br /> These churches disagreed about the authority of the pope, which would cause a split between Catholics and Protestants centuries later, also led to disagreements between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church. To this day there have been many efforts to reunite these two churches, but they have been unsuccessful. Today Turkey is 99% Muslim, but the Eastern Orthodox Church remains the dominant church in Russia and many countries of eastern Europe and Asia. <br /> <br /> The Eastern Orthodox Church and particularly its Saint Cyril were extremely influential in converting the Slavic regions of Eastern Europe (including Russia) to Christianity. Saint Cyril even established a new alphabet for the purpose of teaching the Slavs to read the Bible. His Cyrillic alphabet remains the basis of the alphabet for Russia and other Slavic countries.<br /> <br /> After the schism, the Catholic Church strengthened its organizational structure in 1059 when it established the College of Cardinals to elect future popes, thereby ensuring a smooth transition from pope to pope that has continued to this day. At that time power in western Europe was centered in two places: Germany, where the Saxons ruled, and Rome, where the papacy presided. Their relationship was sometimes friendly, sometimes not-so-friendly. Smaller kingdoms in France and England existed also.<br /> <br /> The biggest event in English history was the Battle of Hastings in 1066, when the Normans invaded and conquered the island and established the reign of William the Conqueror, which lasted until 1087. The Normans continued on to conquer most of Italy in 1084. <br /> <br /> The most important pope of this time was Pope Gregory VII, who reigned from 1073 to 1085. He is known for ending the control of the western church by the secular (non-church) rulers, particularly by abolishing lay investiture, by which lay lords had control over the choice of bishops, abbots and other church officials. Pope Gregory excommunicated the German King Henry IV for insisting on installing bishops, and Henry IV even crossed the Alps in wintertime to seek forgiveness and absolution from the pope in the Canossa incident in 1077. Historians today view the incident as an example of humiliation of a king by a religious leader. Pope Gregory forgave him, but then Henry IV continued to demand control and even removal of Pope Gregory, ultimately causing him to flee Rome in 1084 to survive. Pope Gregory died a year later, while Henry IV lived on for another 20 years.<br /> <br /> Christianity continued to grow in power based on the feudal system. The Christians defeated the Muslims in Spain in 1085 at the battle of Toledo, beginning the process of converting Spain back to Christianity after hundreds of years of Moslem rule. <br /> <br /> Several strict Christian religious orders were established in the 1000s in Europe, including the Carthusian Order (1086) and the Cistercian Order (1098). There are monks today who continue to belong to these orders. Both orders require silence and vegetarianism, in addition to giving up all worldly possessions. The Carthusians lived like hermits; the Cistercians spread Christianity and western farming knowledge to Eastern Europe, hosting many retreats for citizens to attend and participate in a week or weekend of prayer and learning. At its peak, the Cistercians had over 700 monasteries. The first university in the world was established in 1088: the University of Bologna in Italy.<br /> <br /> Capping the end of the 1000s was the capture by the Christians of Jerusalem. This was the greatest success of the Crusades, which we discuss next.<br /> <br /> ==Crusades==<br /> <br /> The most famous military activity in the feudal period was the “Crusades”, a series of wars covering nearly 200 years, from A.D. 1096-1291. Only the First Crusade and, to a lesser extent, the Third Crusade were successful. But the First Crusade alone was immensely successful. <br /> <br /> One of the main purposes of the Crusades was to make Jerusalem safe for Christian pilgrimages. Fed up with reports of the murdering of defenseless Christian pilgrims, in 1095 Pope Urban II called for feudal knights to retake the Holy Land from the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuk Turks seemed almost invincible as fighters, having conquered Asia Minor and even beating the once-mighty Byzantine Empire. The Seljuk Turks ruled from the 1000s to the 1200s, and did particularly well under its ruler Malik Shah, who died in 1092. But some Moslems were unhappy with being ruled by the Turks, and once Malik died dissension in the Islamic world grew.<br /> <br /> The Byzantine emperor, Alexius Comnenus, had been repeatedly defeated by the Seljuk Turks and he asked the pope for help to defeat the Moslems. He promised a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox Church and to give Byzantine lands (“fiefs”) to victorious knights from the feudal west.<br /> <br /> At the Council at Clermont in southern France, Pope Urban II gave one of the greatest speeches ever. Promising absolution and assurance of salvation to anyone who died in the crusade, he urged a huge crowd to protect Christian pilgrims from the Turks. He demanded that all internal feuds end and he threatened excommunication for anyone who continued to bicker internally. Those who decided to fight in the crusades were said to be “taking up the cross,” because they would wear a tunic with a large red cross on it.<br /> <br /> At first Peter the Hermit answered the call of Pope Urban and led an unprepared group of peasants in the first mission, which failed. But news of its failure led to renewed determination by the Christians, and a well-equipped religious mission led by the Normans was formed. This became known as the First Crusade.<br /> <br /> When the western forces reached Constantinople to join with Alexius’ soldiers, the western army was already overwhelming. It proceeded to capture Nicaea in 1097, and went onward to Jerusalem despite intense fighting and hardship.<br /> <br /> In 1099, the First Crusade invaded and succeeded in capturing Jerusalem, and set up four feudal kingdoms that would remain for nearly 100 years. Critics claim that the Christian crusaders massacred the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the process. But it was a huge military victory and Jerusalem was finally made safe for the pilgrims. <br /> <br /> A mixture of Christian spirituality and military adventure motivated the participants in the Crusades like never before in history and perhaps never since. Merchants participated also in the hope of establishing new trade connections. While historians emphasize abuses committed by soldiers, most of the crusaders were acting to advance the cause of Christianity and secure salvation for others and perhaps themselves. This was not necessarily true for all of the crusaders. Criminals who fought were pardoned, and a crusader was exempt from taxation from the time that he “took up the cross,” until he returned from the war. Still for the most part, this was a religious war. <br /> <br /> A Second Crusade in 1147-49 was a failure. In 1187 the Muslims captured Jerusalem under their leader Saladin, and the Third Crusade (1189-92) had the limited success of obtaining a truce from Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That Crusade was led by the leaders of France and the Holy Roman Empire and King Richard the Lion-Hearted of England. The first returned home after an argument on the way to Jerusalem, and the second drowned; only King Richard saw the mission through.<br /> <br /> Two subsequent crusades were tragic. The Fourth Crusade (1202-04) never reached the Holy Land and ended with the crusaders’ sacking Constantinople—a Christian city—wounding it forever and embittering the East against the West. A Children’s Crusade (1212) consisted of peasants leading thousands of children on a mission of love to Jerusalem, but the children either drowned or were taken and sold into slavery. The later Crusades lost their religious motivation. Historians claim they were motivated by greed and ambition.<br /> <br /> The Crusades remain a controversial issue, but all agree that the impact of the Crusades was enormous. Indeed, the Crusades were the biggest cause of the end of the Middle Ages in Western Europe. There are many reasons why:<br /> <br /> (1) The Catholic Church gained more power due to the Crusades, and this led to the Reformation.<br /> <br /> (2) The Crusades introduced Europeans to many new goods from the East, and this greatly increased trade. These new goods included cotton, citrus, sugar, oriental carpets, glassware, paper and gems.<br /> <br /> (3) The Crusades introduced Europeans to gunpowder, one of the most significant inventions in the history of the world. Gunpowder influenced all future military conflicts.<br /> <br /> (4) The Crusades contributed to the end of feudalism and gave power to kings, because the knights had to sell land to the kings to pay for the mission to Jerusalem. Many nobles lost their lives in the Crusades, further strengthening the relative power of the monarchs. Merchants favored the rise of kings, who could better promote and protect trade than feudal knights could.<br /> <br /> (5) The increase in trade due to the Crusades led to an increased use in money rather than barter, and a new middle class (the “bourgeoisie”) developed.<br /> <br /> (6) Italian city-states, such as Rome, grew in power based on providing supplies and ships for the crusaders trying to reach the Holy Land.<br /> <br /> (7) Europeans were inspired by magnificent cities they saw in the East, such as Constantinople, along with achievements in business and artistic works.<br /> <br /> (8) Historians argue that the Crusades improved the power of women who were left to manage property as the crusaders went off into battle.<br /> <br /> Some Christians fully defend the Crusades, and proudly compare the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to a modern version of the Crusades.<br /> <br /> ==The Mongols==<br /> <br /> Asia and eastern Europe suffered the scourge of vicious fighters known as the Mongols. Japan was very fortunate in one key respect: it is an island enjoying the protections of water against invaders like the Mongols. <br /> <br /> The Mongol tribe came from Mongolia, which is northwest of China in central Asia. They were skilled warriors and expert horsemen, capable of riding for days without any difficulty. They would pitch tents as needed and they would roam throughout Asia, destroying anything that stood in their way. They were known for their savagery and were poor administrators of the lands they conquered.<br /> <br /> The founder of the Mongol empire was Chinggis (Genghis) Khan (1162-1227), who united the Mongol tribes. He dreamed of creating the biggest empire in world history, and he did exactly that. He built a massive and powerful army based on meritocracy (promotion based on merit rather than friendship or seniority). <br /> <br /> Chinggis Khan led the Mongols from 1206 to 1227. Historians consider him to have been a military genius, and he conquered the largest contiguous empire in the history of the entire world. <br /> <br /> In all of history, only the Mongols were able to invade Russia successfully in the wintertime. The Mongols conquered Russia in 1237, and ruled over it until 1480. This caused isolation of the Russians from Europe, thereby creating a distrust of Europeans (and Americans) that exists to this day. Russia suffered economically and intellectually from the Mongol rule, and its citizens were subjected to the status of peasants who could act only as serfs for their protectors among the Russian ruling class, who imposed taxes for the benefit of the Mongols. Prince Alexander Nevsky, based on his cooperation with the Mongols, became the first prince of Moscow and all of Russia. The tributes by the Russians to the Mongols did not end until Ivan III of Moscow refused to pay tribute in 1480. By then the Mongols were too weak to do anything about it.<br /> <br /> In 1231, the Mongols invaded Persia and killed hundreds of thousands of people. In 1258, the Mongols defeated the Muslims in Baghdad, located in modern-day Iraq. The Mongols spared Christians in the city but killed the caliph Abbasid. Only later did the Mongols themselves convert to Islam.<br /> <br /> The Mongols destroyed cities, irrigation systems, and anything else that they wanted to. They were greatly feared. They ruled so much land that they had to divide it into four regions: Russia, China, central Asia and Persia. The region of Russia is known as the Khanate of the Golden Horde. <br /> <br /> Brutal in their military techniques, the Mongols added the Chinese warfare of gunpowder and the catapult to their fierce arsenal. They seemed unstoppable and, in addition to conquering much of Asia (including present-day Russia), they also ruled what is now Poland, eastern Germany and Hungary by 1242. They were finally beaten back by Egyptian Mamluks in a famous battle in Palestine, where for the first time another group was able to defeat the Mongols in tough hand-to-hand combat. The furthest the Mongols could reach into western Europe was the outskirts of Vienna.<br /> <br /> The Mongols enjoyed continued success in China, where Kublai Khan founded the Yuan dynasty beginning in 1260, with its capital in present-day Beijing. He connected the Huang He River with Beijing by extending the Grand Canal. He promoted Buddhism and ended mandatory education in the teachings of Confucius. He allowed freedom of religion. He installed foreign administrators to manage the vast country.<br /> <br /> But the Mongols could not conquer Japan. Twice they tried to cross the waters to reach Japan, in 1274 and 1281. Each time an intense wind that the Japanese call the “kamikaze” turned back the Mongols. It was not until World War II that a larger seaborne invasion of Japan was attempted. The Mongols were also unable to conquer Cambodia or Vietnam. The Mongols did control Korea from 1231 to 1350.<br /> <br /> The Mongols retained control of the area known as “Eurasia”, which is the region where Europe and Asia meet. It consists of flat grassland that lacks almost any trees, also called “steppe”. <br /> <br /> From the 1250s to 1350s, there was a period of “Mongol Peace” (Pax Mongolica) when traders were not harassed and some might say were even protected by the Mongols along the Silk Roads, which were the ancient and medieval trade routes linking the Mediterranean world to China.<br /> <br /> Inflation (weakening of the money) destroyed the Mongol empire, just as it destroyed so many other empires and countries. The rulers kept printing more money and its value kept declining, until businessmen did not want to use it anymore. Persia obtained its independence from the Mongols in 1335, and China rebelled against the worthless money also, ridding themselves of the Mongols in 1369, when the Chinese established their own Ming Dynasty. But the Mongols remained a constant threat to China into the 1700s.<br /> <br /> The collapse of the Mongol empire in Persia and eastern Europe enabled the Ottoman (Muslim) Turks to rise to power. They built their own empire then, which lasted until World War I and continues to influence Turkey to this day.<br /> <br /> Today about 9 million people speak the Mongol language: 2.7 million in Mongolia; five million in Inner Mongolia; and one million in Russia. Some in Afghanistan and Turkey are descended from the Mongols.<br /> <br /> ==Nation-States in Europe==<br /> <br /> After the Crusades, the kings and the Catholic Church had much more power and feudalism was weakened. This set the stage for a rise in power of the nation-states that continue to exist to this day. Viking invasions, which had contributed to the rise of feudalism, subsided. The Vikings settled down and converted to Christianity and the threat of foreign invasions was diminished. With new stability, trade began to flourish once again. The European population tripled between A.D. 1000 and 1300. <br /> <br /> Towns began to grow, and merchants formed “guilds”, which were organizations to establish rules and fairness in trade. Guilds were led by men, but both men and women could be members of a guild. The practice of apprenticeship began during this time period, by which young men could receive training from a master craftsmen. A middle class arose, comprised of bankers, merchants and craftsman, and was known as “burgess” in England, “bourgeoisie” in France, and “burgher” in Germany. As prosperity grew, there was also a rise in banking and investment, and gold coins were used as currency. An agricultural revolution occurred, bringing improvements such as new plows, harnesses and farming methods. Feudalism continued to decrease as food surpluses occurred, population increased, and many serfs could now leave the manors.<br /> <br /> An epidemic of the bubonic plague known as the Black Death struck Europe and many parts of Asia between 1347 and 1351. The plague was spread by rats and other rodents, and spread rapidly along trade routes and especially the Silk Road. It originated amongst the Mongols in Asia, who carelessly allowed their sacks of food to be exposed to rats and fleas that carried the fatal disease. Traders brought it with them into the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. In four short years, 40 to 45% of the European population was lost to the plague, especially the poor. The Mongols amplified the problem by using catapults to toss plague-ridden bodies over city walls. The modern world is not the first to use biological warfare.<br /> <br /> The fatality rate was even higher in China, where an estimated 25 million died from it. It took 100 years for Europe and China to recover, and a longer period of time for Islamic countries and the Middle East. Egypt was hit particularly hard, with some areas not recovering for 500 years.<br /> <br /> The germ theory of disease had not been discovered, so nobody could figure out what was causing people to catch and die from the disease. How do you know if you have the disease? Here are the symptoms. Three to seven days after an infection, the person experiences initial symptoms of chills, fever, diarrhea, headaches, and the swelling of the infected lymph nodes. If it is untreated, 30-75% of those who contract the plague die.<br /> <br /> The plague weakened the Catholic Church, which appeared helpless to stop it. After the plague began to subside in the 1350s, there were severe worker shortages and even rebellions as workers demanded higher pay. The devastation to the serf population weakened the force behind the success of the manors and contributed greatly to the end of feudalism. The plague also created a demand for more centralized government that could respond effectively to disease.<br /> <br /> In England, the rise of a centralized government began with a series of Anglo-Saxon kings including Alfred the Great, Edward the Confessor and Harold. In 1066 William the Conqueror, a Norman duke, led an invasion of Britain against the Saxon King Harold. He successfully conquered the country and declared himself owner of all its land, granting fiefs to his Norman lords. The system of feudalism under William led to the rise of a centralized government, and the blend of the Norman and Saxon cultures would come to define the people of England. In 1166, William’s relative Henry II introduced trial by jury and took control of the court system in the “assize of Clarendon.” Royal judges traveled throughout the land, their decisions establishing an English common law, which has greatly influenced law in the United States. William was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine, a remarkable woman who had two husbands and two sons who were kings. <br /> <br /> Henry’s successor was his son, Richard “The Lionheart,” who fought in the Third Crusade and Richard’s successor was his brother John “Lackland”. History and myth surrounding these two men has been immortalized in legendary figures such as Robin Hood and Ivanhoe. Under John’s rule, Philip II of France seized Normandy, and the nobles of England objected to John’s extreme taxation to fund a war. They revolted in June 1215, and forced John to sign the “Magna Charta” (or “Magna Carta”), a “great charter” that diminished the king’s power and gave increased rights to the nobles. It granted the rights to trial by jury and equal protection under the law, and prohibited taxation without representation. The English parliament was also established at this time; the burgesses and knights of the middle class (later known as the “House of Commons”) were now allowed to participate in the legislative process along with bishops and lords (“House of Lords”). These parliamentary bodies govern Britain to this day.<br /> <br /> The rise of a unified nation-state in France began with a line of kings known as the “Capetians” (987-1328). Hugh Capet was the first of the Capetian kings. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Capetians had succeeded in bringing most of France under a centralized government. Philip II was a Capetian king who expanded France, seizing territories including Normandy from John of England, and establishing the official office of “bailiff”, with tax collecting and royal court duties. Louis IX “the Pious” established an appeals court, with authority surpassing that of the local courts. Under the Capetian kings, a French legislative body known as the “Estates General” was created, including the “Third Estate,” which allowed commoners to participate in lawmaking. <br /> <br /> Germany did not succeed in establishing a nation-state, but attempts were made, beginning with Otto I “the Great.” Otto ruled from 936-973, allied himself with the pope and attempted to establish a “Holy Roman Empire.” His efforts did not succeed in uniting Germany as one nation, however. Likewise, in Italy, a unified nation failed to emerge. Instead the various city-states fought bitterly amongst eachother, which was to continue for centuries.<br /> <br /> While nation-states were rising, and kings were gaining more and more authority, controversy arose over who held supreme authority: the pope or the king. “The Great Schism” (1378-1417) was an argument resulting in French cardinals electing an “antipope” (Clement VII) in order to dispute the authority of recently elected Pope Urban VI. This and other controversies set the stage for the Protestant Reformation. <br /> <br /> The Hundred Years’ War, between England and France, lasted from 1337 to 1453. This war began when the last Capetian king died without leaving a successor, and English King Edward III seized the French throne. Joan of Arc, a girl who felt called by God to lead the French army, defeated the English at the siege at Orleans in 1430 at the age of seventeen, but was later captured by the English and burned at stake as a heretic in 1431.<br /> <br /> ==Church Philosophers and Architecture==<br /> <br /> While nation-states were growing in Europe, so were universities. A rapidly-growing number of rich and poor students were instructed in universities in Paris, Oxford, Naples, Padua, Salerno and many others in theology, philosophy, law and medicine. During the 1100s and 1200s “scholasticism” flourished, which sought to combine logic of the classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology. The Scholastics were divided into two groups, the realists (preferring the works of Plato) and the nominalists (preferring Aristotle’s teachings). <br /> <br /> Saint Anselm (1033-1109), born in northern Italy, was an early intellectual giant of scholasticism. The period from the late 1000s to about 1300 is known as the “High Middle Ages,” partly due to this intellectual activity known as scholasticism and also due to great population growth. <br /> <br /> Scholasticism strengthened understanding of Christian doctrine through careful definition and systematic argument. Anselm preferred to defend Christianity through use of powerful logical arguments, rather than relying entirely and solely on scripture. Anselm is famous for the first “ontological” argument, which is an argument attempting to prove the existence of God by reasoning from the definition of God. <br /> <br /> Anselm was a brilliant Latin scholar who became a Benedictine monk to the disappointment of his father, who wanted him to enter politics. After Anselm became a monk, he “proved” the existence of God as follows. Everyone, even a fool, can conceive of a variation in perfection of a being. In other words, some beings are more perfect than others with respect to justice, wisdom or power. Because there is a variation, there must be a being that is most perfect. But “existence” is an attribute of perfection: it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Therefore the most perfect being must also exist. Therefore God, defined as the most perfect being conceivable, must exist.<br /> <br /> Anselm also had a tremendous logical argument for why Christ must exist. In the feudalism of Anselm’s day, the severity of a crime and amount of satisfaction required of the offender varied depending on who the victim was. Someone who committed a crime against the king would require more satisfaction or payment by the criminal after he was caught than a similar crime against a peasant. Similar rules exist today, where a crime against the president is far more serious than a similar crime against an ordinary citizen. Anselm wrote a paper entitled “Cur Deus homo?” (“Why Did God Become Man?”), in which he explained that finite man could never satisfy a crime or sin against the infinite God. Only an infinite man (Christ) could provide full satisfaction because the victim of the crime or sin was the infinite God. Hence the existence of Christ is essential.<br /> <br /> Anselm was appointed the archbishop of Canterbury, England, which he accepted reluctantly. He became determined to reform the English Church and he fought against efforts by the King of England to control or interfere with the Church. At one point Anselm presented his grievances against King William to Pope Urban II. These conflicts were precursors to a huge dispute between a pope and English king centuries later, which caused the king to form his own church and split from Roman authority.<br /> <br /> The most famous Scholastic was Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Dominican monk who wrote Summa Theologica. Many consider this to be the most perfect and complete summary of Christian theology, and he established an entire type of Christian philosophy known as “Thomism”, which is followed to this day. Aquinas was somewhat controversial during his life, but was quickly revered by the Catholic Church after his death. He developed five new proofs for the existence of God using logic. The first three were “cosmological” proofs rather than the “ontological” approach of Anselm. A cosmological proof deals with the natural order of the universe. Aquinas’ most famous cosmological argument was that whatever is in motion (for example, us) must have been put in motion by something else (our parents). They, in turn, must have been put in motion by something else (their parents). But this sequence cannot go on to infinity. There must have been a first mover. This we call “God”. <br /> <br /> Thomas Aquinas’ views on the nature of man included a unique interpretation of the Fall of Man; some would call it an incomplete one. He believed that while men had rebelled against God and the human will was fallen, the human intellect remained perfect. Therefore, human wisdom could be relied upon and given as much prominence as the teachings of the Bible. This idea justified mixing the works of the classical, secular philosophers into Christian theology. Also as a result, the authority of the church became as important, if not more so, than that of the Bible. These ideas set the stage for humanism, which was the predominant philosophy of the Renaissance. <br /> <br /> Thomas Aquinas is further known for his famous observation that the devil cannot withstand mockery. Mockery can be useful in defeating a bad idea or temptation. <br /> <br /> There were other prominent Scholastics, such as Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who used logic and questioning to discuss issues of religious controversy in his Sic et Non (“Yes and No”).<br /> There was outstanding architecture in the Middle Ages, which can be seen in the majestic churches built during that era. There were two main styles: Romanesque and Gothic. Romanesque architecture is characterized by thick walls, rounded arches and small windows. The Gothic style, developed later, consisted of taller, perpendicular structures with long windows, pointed arches and “flying buttresses” (stone supports on the outer walls of churches). Gothic architecture, with its tall, pointed spires is said to reflect the desire of people of the Middle Ages to grow closer to God, reaching towards heaven and away from the earth. Tall windows allowed sunlight to illuminate the interior, unlike Romanesque architecture, in which windows were small and interiors were dim. A particularly stunning example of Gothic architecture is the Notre Dame in Paris, on which construction began in 1163 during the reign of Louis VII, and was completed about 200 years later in about 1345. The Notre Dame features a beautiful stained-glass “rose window,” another distinguishing characteristic of Gothic churches.<br /> <br /> ==The End of the Byzantine Empire and the Expansion of Islam==<br /> <br /> The end of the Byzantine empire occurred when Mongols invaded in the 13th century, followed by the rise of the Ottoman (Muslim) Turks to power in the 14th century, who replaced the Byzantium empire with their own. The Ottoman empire then lasted over 600 years, from 1299 to 1923, when it was divided by the victors in World War I. At the height of its power in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman empire included Anatolia, the Middle East, portions of North Africa, and much of southeastern Europe.<br /> <br /> While powerful nation-states were developing in Europe, absolutist empires were spreading throughout the East and Islam was growing rapidly. In present-day Turkey, in a region known as “Anatolia,” Muslim warriors called “ghazi” arose, seeking to conquer land belonging to infidels, or people of non-Islamic faith. A famous ghazi named Osmen Bey began the Ottoman empire. The strongest element of the Ottoman and other Asian empires of the time was their use of gunpowder, which gave rise to the term “gunpowder empires.” Under Ottoman rule, non-Muslims had to pay a tax to avoid military service, which was mandatory for Muslims. Slaves called “janissaries” were also used as warriors.<br /> <br /> In 1453 Ottoman sultan Mehmed II captured Constantinople, and tore the cross off the top of the Hagia Sophia, and declared the Christian church a mosque. Selim the Grim and Suleiman I followed, expanding the Ottoman territories into an empire comprising Constantinople (now Istanbul), Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Greece and even parts of Hungary and Austria. The height of the Ottoman empire existed during the reign of Suleiman I, which lasted from 1520 to 1566 AD. Suleiman was known by Europeans as “the Magnificent” because of the splendor of his reign, but has had the most prominence throughout history for his outstanding contribution as a lawgiver. His picture can be found in the United States Supreme Court alongside those of Moses, Thomas Jefferson and Solon. Called “people of the book”, Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their faiths under Ottoman rule.<br /> <br /> In addition to the Ottoman empire were the Islamic empires of Safavid and Mughal. The Safavid dynasty, located in north-west Persia, was founded by a 14-year old “shah” (king) named Ismail who conquered the Seljuk Turks in North India. The Shi’ite Safavids fought with the Sunni Ottomans for 200 years. Safavid Shah Abbas the Great saw the peak of the Safavid Empire during his reign from 1588-1629, and established trade with Europe.<br /> <br /> The beginnings of the Mughal Empire, located in India, were established by Babur around 1525 AD. Under the reign of Babur’s grandson Akbar (1556-1605), the Mughal Empire experienced its “Golden Age,” during which taxes were decreased. The languages spoken were Persian, Hindi (still spoken in India today), and Urdu (a new language combining Persian, Hindi, and Arabic characters; present-day Pakistan’s official language). Other religions were tolerated under Akbar’s rule, but not under Aurangzeb’s notoriously intolerant rule (from 1659-1707), during which Hindus were taxes and their temples torn down, causing discord in the Mughal Empire, including an uprising of the previously non-violent Hindi-Muslim Sikhs. <br /> <br /> Contributions of these Islamic empires include the stunningly beautiful Taj Mahal, an enormous tomb built of pure white marble beginning in 1631 by Akbar’s grandson Shah Jahan for his beloved wife. Building of the Taj Mahal in India lasted 18 years, and 20,000 workers were used. Jahan was so overwhelmed with its beauty, and so cruel to its workers, that he had their hands cut off so they would never build another one like it! Jahan also constructed the “Red Fort,” a red-sandstone palace and the “Peacock Throne,” encrusted with thousands of gems. Many beautiful mosques and palaces were built in Constantinople under Ottoman rule, many designed by artist and architect Pasha Sinan. The most famous Ottoman form of art was the blue-and-white pottery of Iznik.<br /> <br /> The Islamic empires participated in international trade (especially the Ottomans and Safavids), but not to the extent that the Europeans were trading. Technological advancements flourishing in Europe (such as the printing press) were not received well in dar-al Islam (lands under Islamic control). These factors, combined with prolonged periods of warfare eventually led to the downfall of the Islamic empires.<br /> <br /> ==Africa==<br /> <br /> As we have already seen in this course, language played a central role in defining a society. This was also true in sub-Saharan Africa (south of the Saharan desert), where the Bantu language was shared by peoples in West Africa prior to 1000 B.C. Historians refer to the West Africans as “Bantu speakers” who lived along the rain forest on the edge of what is now Nigeria. The Bantu speakers began migrating to the east and south of Africa around 2000 B.C., and this migration was at its peak between about 700 and 500 B.C. By A.D. 1000, the migration had ceased and several Bantu kingdoms arose in southern Africa.<br /> <br /> In eastern Africa, the Arabic language was influential. When the Bantu language collided with Arabic, the result was the Swahili for the peoples of east Africa.<br /> <br /> There was no private property in these settlements, as property was shared among the community. Typically a family member served as the leader of each family or “kinship group” and there was no formal government.<br /> <br /> Fruits, particularly bananas, initially imported from Southeast Asia by traders, were a major source of nutrition that helped increase the health and population. Malay sailors brought the banana over the Indian Ocean to an island known as Madagascar, where the people still speak a language similar to that spoken in Malaysia.<br /> <br /> The primary African religion was “animism”, or a belief that spirits exist in nature similar what some American Indians believe. The religion was handed down from generation to generation not in writings, but in oral stories. The storytellers are called “griots”. There was a little bit of farming along the edges of the rain forests, but most of the activity was a “hunting-gathering” type. In central Africa there was some cattle raising.<br /> <br /> By 700 B.C. the Bantu speakers in West Africa discovered iron smelting, and began using it to make tools and weapons. The distribution of knowledge of that invention followed the path of the spread of the Bantu language itself through central and southern Africa.<br /> <br /> There was an active slave trade in Africa long before Americans began importing slaves in the early A.D. 1600s. Muslims engaged in African slave trade across the Indian Ocean to the Far East and South Asia. Africans captured fellow Africans and sold them into slavery, where they would work in households in faraway lands. Typically the slaves sold to Muslim traders were from central and eastern Africa. Slaves were the only type of private property that existed, so personal wealth depended on how many slaves one owned.<br /> <br /> The term “age grade” refers to how people around the same age would gather in African tribes to perform work or share stories. Both men and women shared in farming work.<br /> <br /> There were several empires in Africa. In West Africa, the kingdoms thrived based on transporting and trading gold and salt across the Saharan desert. Once the Berbers discovered how to use camels to take them across the desert in the A.D. 200s, trade across the desert began. Ironically, salt became so important to preserving food and promoting health that it became almost as valuable as gold! These empires in West Africa raised money by taxing the goods as they passed through their empires. Islam was popular in West Africa and children were taught to read the Qu’ran in Arabic.<br /> <br /> The Kingdom of Kongo was a Bantu-speaking society that lasted from sometime after A.D. 1000 to the 1500s. It consisted of present-day Congo and Angola. It declined once the Portugese explored and invaded the east coast of Africa in the mid-1500s, and introduced the Catholic religion to the Kongo. <br /> <br /> The Kingdom of Aksum, located in present-day Ethiopia, traced its roots of Aksum to the migration of Arabs across the Red Sea into Africa in 1000 B.C. It had a written language called “Ge’ez” (a Semitic languge using Arabic characters) and controlled the southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula. The peak of its power was under the strong ruler named Ezrana in A.D. 325-360. Ezrana conquered Kush and destroyed the city of Meroe. He also converted to Christianity and a Coptic Church formed in the Aksum kingdom. Aksum developed a coin currency and a unique architectural style called a “stele”, which consisted of large stone pillars. But in A.D. 710, the Muslims conquered Aksum and destroyed its big trading city known as Adulis.<br /> <br /> The Kingdom of Ghana (A.D. 800-1076), Mali (A.D. 1235-1403) and Songhai (A.D. 1403-1591) were all located in West Africa and were mostly Muslim. Ibn Battuta, a Muslim traveler who toured the Islamic regions of the world around A.D. 1352, wrote of his admiration of Mali. All these West African empires thrived under strong rulers and the very active gold-salt trade across the Sahara. Trade was based on leopard skins, slaves, pepper, ivory, bronze, brass and copper. A society known as Hansa was famous for its leather goods and cloth. But by A.D. 1500 both Islamic countries and Christian European countries were gaining influence in Africa.<br /> <br /> The Kingdom of Zimbabwe existed from southeastern Africa to the Indian Ocean around A.D. 1200s to the 1500s. Like other African empires, the city of Great Zimbabwe was build on trade, particularly gold. Numerous Swahili towns in this region of Africa profited from trade in slaves, ivory and goods from Persia, China and India, such as cotton, silk and perfumes.<br /> <br /> Religion. Islam and Christianity both spread in Africa, and still do today. However, the Africans would often retain some of their tribal customs. Historians claim that the Africans treated women better under tribal customs than under Islam, citing less use of the veil by women in African societies than Arab Muslim societies. African Christians also had conflicts with principles of faith established by European Christians, such as issues related to the divinity of Christ, although the Catholic Church today is growing much faster in Africa than in Europe. For example, Coptic Christians in Egypt slightly differ from European Christians in their view of Christ, and they split in A.D. 451.<br /> <br /> Islam was more popular in North Africa, where it became the main religion for the peoples bordering the Mediterranean Sea. The Berbers converted to Islam, and then merged with the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties to bring North Africa under Muslim rule by the end of the seventh century. From northern Africa, the Muslims entered and conquered southern Spain, where they were known as Moors. The Muslims then increased trade with other African peoples and regions bordering in the Indian Ocean. The Almoravid dynasty conquered Morocco in the A.D. 1000s and Ghana and parts of southern Spain in A.D. 1076. By the mid-1100s, the Almoravids conquered the Almohads also.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile, Christianity had some success in East Africa, and particularly in what is now Ethiopia. Trade between East Africa and central Africa and the Indian Ocean flourished both under the Muslims in East Africa and, later, the Portuguese.<br /> <br /> ==Oceania==<br /> <br /> The name “Oceania” describes the lands of the central and south Pacific, including Australia, New Zealand, Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, and sometimes the Malay Archipelago. The islands traded with each other, though typically not with faraway lands. <br /> <br /> The Australian aborigines (natives) exist to this day on the island, having their own culture that only began to change with immigration by Europeans in the past 200 years. The aborigines foraged (searched) for food and did not farm.<br /> <br /> In fact, Australians did not have agriculture until the Europeans arrived. The earliest agricultural civilizations were the Indus Valley, Sumer (Southwest Asia), Egypt and Andean highlands (potato). Agriculture developed independently in different areas of the world in ancient times.<br /> <br /> Like other cultures, the Polynesians were polytheistic and used a flattened or terraced pyramid for worship, similar to a ziggurat. They grew in population most significantly after A.D. 1000.<br /> <br /> The Hawaiian islands in the middle of the Pacific are so far away that they are not typically part of Oceania, and the distance was too far to establish trade until European sailors arrived.<br /> <br /> The New Zealand population survived by growing sweet potatoes and fern roots, and also by raising dogs. Fish was obviously a major food source on many of the islands, including Hawaii.<br /> <br /> None of these Oceanic societies had metallurgy (e.g., iron) or other technology. But they did have social structures common to nearly every society, with a military class and the rich and poor.<br /> <br /> [[Category:History]]</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=126896 2007-04-25T16:11:01Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>This article is in desperate need of more references. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :And desperate need of work. This article is lacking in any real information and cites questionable sources. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reverts? ==<br /> <br /> Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.<br /> :Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Protected==<br /> <br /> I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|&amp;lt;&amp;lt;-David R-&amp;gt;&amp;gt;]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want &quot;facts&quot; they want '''&quot;their facts&quot;'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.<br /> <br /> Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164. <br /> <br /> Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.<br /> <br /> And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that &quot;scavenger&quot; and &quot;herbivore&quot; are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The line &quot;&quot; Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals.&quot;&quot; is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more &quot;logical sense&quot; to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.<br /> <br /> ::@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT) <br /> <br /> This article should now be available for editing by registered users. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Ugh==<br /> <br /> To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. &quot;If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals.&quot; is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't &quot;probably&quot; scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence &quot;Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals.&quot; is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. &quot;The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world.&quot; - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. &quot;Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him.&quot; Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. &quot;Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey.&quot; Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. &quot;Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs.&quot; - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::That's funny that you'd ask that considering some of your previous comments regarding liberals and athetists and their beliefs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Herbivorous? ==<br /> <br /> While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that &quot;Cretaceous Period&quot; and &quot;Million years ago&quot; nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Redirect oddity? ==<br /> <br /> First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.<br /> <br /> But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for &quot;rex&quot; redirects to &quot;Rex&quot;, but the ''talk'' page for &quot;Rex&quot; redirects to &quot;rex&quot;. It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Do we mean NOW? ==<br /> I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) &quot;'''are''' actually vegetarians&quot; and that Scorpioman says &quot;they certainly '''seem''' adept hunters.&quot; Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See [[Dinosaur]] and its sources, especially [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yes, well. I've seen the conservapedia article before, but I hadn't clicked the link you provided. It's hard to make a reasoned intelligent response really. There's so little connection to reality. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Sid, don't be absurd. Of ''course'' we know they're dead. Stop trying to insult us. But since you're going to be so picky, shall I say &quot;It certainly seems that they ''were'' adept hunters&quot;? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yeah, stealthily sneaking up on an unsuspecting CABBAGE! [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I'll gladly include you in the list of people who know they're dead, but quite a few people here and out there seem to argue that they might still exist. Or at least they try to spread as much doubt as possible. My usage of &quot;they&quot; had been somewhat broad, though. Honest apologies for that. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Then somebody should change this locked article so that it reads &quot;were actually vegetarians&quot;. It'll still be wrong, but at least that little bit of grammar would be correct. You might want to change the bit about the teeth as well. As far as the &quot;they believe&quot; and &quot;we believe&quot; stuff is concerned - I note that the Dinosaur article talks about creationists believing that dinosaurs &quot;still roam the earth today&quot;. I'm afraid I don't know you - could you tell me who you speak for when you say &quot;we&quot;?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::Maybe YEC folks think we were ALL born yesterday? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::Far weirder thing is that the first sentence states that they ''were'' carnivorous while the entire rest of the article argues that they ''weren't'' carnivorous. Like, make up your mind, please? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]<br /> <br /> == Bible ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals.&quot;''<br /> <br /> Aren't all Christians Bible-believing? Or am I mistaken and there are some Christians that don't believe in the Bible, Jesus and God.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You are mistaken. Most Christians, including catholics, eastern orthodox, and mainline protestants respect the bible, but do not take it as literal truth. The loud evangelical literalists in the states are the minority of Christians. Though Conservapedia is built for the wacky fringes, not for conservatives as I had previously thought.<br /> <br /> Perhaps we should rename it to &quot;whackopedia&quot;, though that name may be taken by a different sort of project!<br /> <br /> :&quot;Whackopedia&quot; sounds like a great title of a parody of Wikpedia, although there already is one: [[Uncyclopedia]]. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Article Protection==<br /> <br /> I unlocked this article earlier in the hopes of a well-written, accurate entry being created. If the &quot;evolutionist&quot;/creationist text keeps being replaced without accurate sources, this article will be protected again. I don't support the locking of articles, but if need be, it will be done. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Diet ==<br /> <br /> I've added a section on tyrannosaur's diet. If anything is missing, feel free to add. Most of it is there already, but if there are some other aspects about this creature's diet that need to be there, please add them in. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Did not Live?? ==<br /> <br /> I see that there is a line under the alternative theories which states the animal: &quot;either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history.&quot; While I can (just about)imagine somebody believing that they co-existed with humans - are there really people who simply refuse to believe they existed at all? The bones come from ... where? in this case? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :&lt;s&gt;That section needs reworking because it doesn't make sense at the moment&lt;/s&gt;.<br /> :Ok I've done it now. I left that view in that they didn't exist - YECs used to have that opinion, though I couldn't find a decent source for it. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 17:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I've never heard that argument put forth by anyone. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. ==<br /> <br /> Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. That was the reason for the rollback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> :Erm, OK, which rule was broken, and what ''scientific'' evidence is there that T-rex lived about 6,000 years ago? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Everything you post must be true and verifiable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> ::::'''''IT IS TRUE'''''. Me saying that there is not scientific evidence to support it, and then not citing the nonexistent scientific evidence, affirms the point made. It is ''your'' job to support your views by adding citations that there ''is'' some ''scientific'' evidence to support it. Though there isn't. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::You can't bloody prove either viewpoint. That's what NPOV is for. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]&lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&lt;/sup&gt; 07:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''Conservative''', I believe that you were too quick and too judgemental here. ''Before'' you accuse someone of breaking a rule, you should establish and demonstrate that they ''have'' broken a rule. That he had broken a rule was not self-evident, and it could have been inadvertent or through a misunderstanding. You should engage in discussion before throwing accusations.<br /> <br /> '''Hojimachongtalk''', your claim that there is very little evidence is ''not'' a fact, but the view of anti-creationists. Creationists point out that both evolutionists and creationists have the ''same'' evidence, but the difference is in how one interprets the evidence. To use an unrelated example, the Grand Canyon is evidence of erosion on a large scale. Uniformitarians interpret this as the result of a little bit of water (the Colorado River) acting over a long period of time. Creationists interpret it as the result of a lot of water (e.g. flood runoff) acting over a short period of time. Same evidence, different interpretations.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :For the last time, ''I never said it wasn't a fact''. I said that ''most mainstream scientists'' (you know, the evil, heathen, hellbound atheist ones) feel that the view is ''not supported by enough evidence''. They certainly regard it in that manner. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You are mistaken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&amp;diff=65031&amp;oldid=64969 Your edit] had the article saying, &quot;this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence&quot;. There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong ==<br /> <br /> Hojimachong is being quite uncivil. Here is what he wrote to me: &quot;It is a fact that there is very little ''scientific'' evidence. '''Quote the Bible all you want''', but it does not encompass the generally accepted scientific view, which is that T-rex lived several million years ago. It specifically said, ''backed up by very little scientific evidence'', which is true. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> :Explain how in any stretch of the imagination this is incivil. I am voicing a completely valid concern (your deletion of factual material). --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Conservative - why are you whining? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Let's not argue about who's civil, uncivil, whining, etc. Free pizza and root beer to all who agree. :-)<br /> :::Sounds good to me. Now wheres the &lt;s&gt;root&lt;/s&gt; beer and pizza? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Extinction==<br /> <br /> :This view is regarded with much skepticism by people outside the young earth creationist community, who feel it is not supported by enough evidence.<br /> <br /> I'd like to see any 'scientific' references related to estimates of how long ago t-rex went extinct. I gather Young Earth creationism is at odds with mainstream biology on this. A good encyclopedia would describe this dispute clearly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The general consensus among scientists is that T-Rex, along with nearly all other land dinosaurs, became extinct during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, about 65.5 million years ago. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == YEC theories ==<br /> <br /> One of the mentioned &quot;theories&quot; of Young Earth Creationists is that T-Rex &quot;did not live&quot; -- I am not sure how that theory works. Who created the skeletons of T-Rex, then? Have a look at the [http://creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurus_rex Creation Wiki] page on T-Rex; perhaps it might be of some value as a model. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Some think that the Earth was created &quot;with age&quot;, seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether &quot;theory&quot; was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Can anyone name me ''one'' creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It's not a view found in the organisations. Rather it's a theological opinion which is occassional formed by individuals. It's crops up on occassion, so I think we should mention it, but it shouldn't be called mainstream or common. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::As long as the qualifications that you put there are quite clear in the article, I guess I could go along with that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> The linked references to the Creation Science section include on that mentions Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster in passing, so the mention of these in the article -- if this reference is retained -- don't seem to be entirely groundless. Also, I would note that most of the articles cited are not themselves sources, but articles citing other articles (e.g. ''Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10'', which does not seem to be available itself anywhere online, is the source for one of the referenced article's claim of human and dinosaur footprints being found together. It should also be noted that the items referenced so far are general essays on pro-Creation and Christian websites.[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Before/after the fall ==<br /> <br /> If T-Rex lived in the garden of Eden, he must have been a vegetarian rather than a scavenger since there was no death in the garden, right? If so, it looks like God created T-Rex knowing that man would fall and the world would need some predators. I wonder what Adam thought when he saw those huge teeth and massive claws. I wonder if he had some thought in the back of his head that something was off?<br /> <br /> Also, is there a consensus on whether T-Rex made it to the Ark? I've read that they became extinct because they didn't make it to the Ark, but other sources say that ALL animals made it to the ark and T-Rex would then have become extinct sometime after the flood - perhaps because of overhunting (That is Kent Hovind's view).<br /> <br /> Any thoughts on the above? [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 11:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Genesis indicates that the animals were created as vegetarians, so correct on that point. And of course an omniscient God would know what would happen. But it doesn't necessarily mean that T. Rex was designed to eat meat. There are creatures today that would be (and in at least one case are) classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth, but which are vegetarians. Big sharp teeth can be used by vegetarians, but in a fallen world, some creatures&amp;mdash;such as ones with big sharp teeth&amp;mdash;may be better suited to becoming carnivores than others.<br /> :If T. Rex fossils are found in sediments laid down by the flood (which they are), then they must have survived until the time of the flood, and (at least) two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature alive at the time of the flood made it onto the ark. Therefore, so did T. Rex, and it must have become extinct since, possibly because of changed habitat, possibly because of being hunted to extinction by man (or of course a combination of reasons).<br /> :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Changes==<br /> Asked CPAdmin1 why revert was made and didn't get a response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CPAdmin1#Recent_change_on_T-Rex_page Query] Put references back in. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 22:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Added links to the science article and a PDF of the methods used for the research.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I haven't looked at the page yet. When I was an active Mediator at Wikipedia I often commented before taking a look. May as well get all my cards on the table before playing the game. Okay, here goes (dons spacesuit, enters time machine). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Point of view==<br /> <br /> What's that logical fallacy called again, [[begging the question]]? Anyway, I only got this far in the article history:<br /> <br /> :Recent findings have shown that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=72413]<br /> <br /> That sort of wording is unsuitable because:<br /> #Saying that something &quot;has been shown to be true&quot; is the same as endorsing the view, i.e., calling it &quot;[[knowledge]]&quot; (justified true belief).<br /> #Scientists like to take a few months or years to kick around a new idea before deciding whether to accept it or not.<br /> <br /> Shall I stop here, or continue my analysis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Please continue. This research has been anticipated since the discovery of the soft tissue. The claims from it have already undergone scientific review, one reason so many of us have known about it before the publication. We can reword it to say something like &quot;has been found to be linked to...&quot; --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::How about this:<br /> <br /> ::&quot;A recent study by (whoever did the study) indicates that the Tyrannosaurus may be the genetic forebear of the modern chicken. (reference)&quot;<br /> <br /> ::This way, there is still considerable room for doubt but it will direct people to the reference where they can decide for themselves if the science is valid. I disapprove of the term cousin in this setting also. Lacks ''gravitas''. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I would be fine with that:). I reverted what had been posted before and added additional links since yesterday they were not avalible online. I guess the other issue was the total removal of the scientific community's consensus as well, not the chicken thing as much as the age thing.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The problem is with the concept of a [[finding]]. We need to say (1) that scientists '''think''' there's a connection between raptors and chickens and (2) that this important because (as they 'think') it '''demonstrates''' (illustrates? proves?) once and for all that the [[Theory of evolution]] is true and all those YECs are [[dodo]]s (i.e., birdbrains doomed to extinction). <br /> <br /> Or something like that - anyway, that's the [[subtext]]. By the way, I keep making all these red links for a reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :LOL, I got your hint and can add to the red. (I feel like one of my students correcting the red marks I put on their essay exams). I am fine with point 1 but point 2 is not needed here. The edits were made due to the research that linked the T-Rex with the chicken instead of other animals. The evolution stuff can be placed on the ToE page, here I believe just the information that is within the scope of this page should be placed.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::How about something like this &quot;Scientists have hypothesized about a link between dinosaurs and birds for many years. Just recently a research article &quot;cite&quot; was published, claiming a molecular link between the T-Rex and chickens.&quot;--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::That's about right. The key to wiki collaboration is to anticipate (and head off) all likely objections. Not overstating one's point is generally the best tactic. See [[terms to avoid]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I'll agree that maybe the original wording wasn't the best, but I still think it should be included in the article as it does pertain to the T Rex. Also, if the YEC section is to be included, why not information that supports/presents the evolution idea too? <br /> ::::&lt;s&gt;I'd still like an explanation from the webmaster why he removed it and ignored my questions. I hate non-confrontation.&lt;/s&gt; [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> TimS, the problem that I had with your edits, other than Ed's point about &quot;finding&quot; vs. a different wording, is that I don't believe the scientists have actually done what you said they have. That is, they have not shown &quot;that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken&quot;. What they ''have'' done is show similarities between T rex and modern chickens. But is that similarity due to evolutionary relationship, or other causes?<br /> <br /> Dr. Menton [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3043/ commented] on earlier work similar to this:<br /> {{QuoteBox|...all of the similarities they describe would be expected in essentially any amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal. All small blood vessels are tubular and branched. All blood vessels, as well as the heart, are lined with special cells called endothelial cells. Among other things, these cells are necessary to avoid clotting of the blood inside the vessel. And of course, all blood vessels contain … blood cells}}<br /> Do you know of any studies that have been done to show that the T rex material is ''closer'' to that of chickens than (a) other birds, or even (b) reptiles or other vertebrates?<br /> <br /> Also, I don't agree with putting the YEC stuff in a separate section. This has the result of describing when they live, what they eat, etc., in the main sections, with the YEC stuff relegated to an &quot;also ran&quot;. I will be reverting that.<br /> <br /> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Philip, because I am getting ready to head to work. Question (a) from above: yes they had tested the proteins against other bird families. (b) yes they tested agains several families of vertebrates, reptiles and mammals. Review the link to the science page and read the research yourself. What Dr. Menton is discribing is an physiological comparison, what was done was a molecular comparison. They are totaly different, a physiolgical comparison would identify you as a human while a molecular one would identify you as related to your grand parents, or the English royal family.<br /> <br /> I can understand your position of not believeing, that is why we are changing the wording, however that is not a reason to strike it. I do not believe much of what is written, however that does not make it any less. <br /> The YEC stuff was not touched by the edits of Jrssr5 and I.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :For easy reference, here are Jrssr5's and TimS' links that he added to the article (only the first two of which are currently in the article):<br /> :* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]<br /> :* [http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]<br /> :* [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277]<br /> :* [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/316/5822/277/DC1/1]<br /> <br /> : Okay, with a closer look, I think I've found what you were referring to. The 1st reference does make mention of comparisons with a newt and a frog. But in the absence of any other creatures mentioned (or have I missed something else?), that's hardly a convincing argument. At the most, it says that dinosaurs are more similar to birds than amphibians. I think that could have been presumed anyway.<br /> : And my other point is that it doesn't prove an evolutionary relationship. Dinosaurs and birds ''are'' similar (both are air-breathing vertebrates, for example), so you would expect similarities if they were both designed by the same creator. So demonstrating similarities does not prove an evolutionary relationship. Or have you already conceded that point?<br /> : And apologies for any (unintended) inference that either you or Jrssr5 had moved the YEC stuff.<br /> : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I've since found another source ([http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/13/t-rex-big-chicken]) which does mention other creatures that they compared against. However, it also says this:<br /> {{QuoteBox|The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58% ,while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows}}<br /> :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Philip, the first two links were already there, I just added the science publication links. The difference in what you sourced above with the % sequences is based on DNA squencing, this is protein matching, something alot more difinitive. Whereas DNA squences are transcribed to RNA and then translated into an aminoacid chain the protein is helped by other proteins to form the final shape. So the same DNA sequence can be used to produce several different possible proteins. However, when molecular protein matching is performed the results are far more difinitive, think about how a western blott works. DeWitt cited another work by the group however his cite did not show what he stated. No where in the research did the comparisons between humans, frogs and cows was made in the article that he cited. I know those percentages to be DNA sequence percentages not protein sequences. Totaly different standards, like comparing apples to oranges. Check the sources yourself and you can see the difference--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Sorry about the links. Jrssr5 added the first two a short time before you added the other two. I've corrected it.<br /> :Isn't DNA sequencing what is used to show the 98% (or whatever the figure is today) similarity between apes and humans? Are you sure this is not a case of picking the comparison that suits the argument best?<br /> :Regardless, it still doesn't affect the argument that similarities could be due to a common designer (using similar proteins for similar functions).<br /> :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It is a combination of DNA and protein matching to get that number. Although it is important to note that not every ape is as close as others. I will agree that it does not make any statement towards the similarities that could be due to a designer.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Just for my curiosity, what are these scientists claiming about the T-rex/chicken relationship (if anything)? That various dinosaurs independently evolved into different birds, or that some dinosaur evolved into a bird, from which all modern birds are descended, and that chickens are the nearest thing to that original bird? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I can not say. The paper only reported the similarities and showed the genetic distance of other families of animals from the dinosaurs. They made no claim about the method of descent just that there was a relationship.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Thanks for both answers. I didn't mean to imply that all apes are the same in that regard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No problem Philip, I am glad you asked for the information.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I'm glad to see that a resolution was made here. Philip, you always seem to have a level head and are rational. Even though I don't share some of your beliefs, working with you is easy. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Thanks. Just going back to my last question for a moment, I accept that you don't know the answer, but would you agree that the two possibilities I mentioned seem to be about the ''only'' two possibilities, and that both seem rather unlikely (even within the evolutionary paradigm)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == T-Rex soft tissue? ==<br /> <br /> I am a little concerned about the soft tissue reference.<br /> <br /> The source is a creationist site. I do not mean to imply that creationist sites are necessarily unreliable - but isn't there some other additional source? It sounds like a sensational find. I would have expected it to make the front cover of New Scientist.<br /> <br /> Also, when you look at the site a couple of things stand out for me. Firstly the story says that the tissue was found in a T-Rex bone that they had to break in order to transport it by helicopter. Does that sound right to you? Breaking a T-Rex bone to transport it? Not to me either.<br /> <br /> Second, if the flesh was not fossilized why hasn't it been carbon dated? That would settle a few arguments wouldn't it?<br /> <br /> The whole thing sounds a bit suspicious. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] &lt;sup&gt;[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If creationists accepted carbon dating there wouldn't be creationists anymore, don't you think?<br /> <br /> [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]<br /> <br /> How about [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html National Geographic]? The [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm BBC] has a good article too. The NG article explains the why of breaking the bone:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;The dinosaur was under an incredible amount of rock,&quot; said Jack Horner, a curator of paleontology at the museum. &quot;When it was collected, the specimen was very far away from a road, and everything had to be done by helicopter.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;The team made a plaster jacket to get part of the fossil out, and it was too big for the helicopter to lift. And so we had to take the fossil apart.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;In so doing, we had to break a thighbone in two pieces. When we did that, it allowed [Schweitzer] to get samples out of the middle of the specimen. You don't see that in most excavations, because every effort is made to keep the fossil intact,&quot; said Horner, a co-author of the study.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Give it a read.--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well, there you go. I stand corrected. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] &lt;sup&gt;[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Freakin' amateurs! (LOL)<br /> <br /> [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]<br /> <br /> Why don't they carbon-date the remains? Because the scientists concerned believe that the remains are 65 million years old, which is too old to date with carbon dating. Creationists wish that they ''would'' carbon-date the remains&amp;mdash;it would almost certainly show that they are ''not'' 65 million years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It wouldn't show anything of the sort. It would bottom out at the limit of the Carbon dating test, which isn't the same thing at all. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years, so 65 million years is approximately 10000 half lives. So after 65 million years, C14 will have reduced by a factor of 2^10000, which can essentially be regarded as infinite. It's like measuring your way home from work using a tape measure: once you reach the end of the tape you can't measure any further. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Post-it_note&diff=124530 2007-04-24T09:42:34Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>A Post-it® note is a piece a paper with an adhesive on the back, typically used in offices to record notes to oneself or colleagues. Developed by 3M, they were considered to be inventive because the notes can adhere and also then be removed. Orginally yellow, they are now found in a variety of colors and shapes.</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christmas_Island&diff=124529 2007-04-24T09:41:22Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:ChristmasIslandFlag.gif‎ |thumb|200px|The flag of Christmas Island]]<br /> [[Image:Christmaslsland.gif‎ |thumb|200px|Christmas Island]]<br /> '''Christmas Island''' is a territory of [[Australia]] located in the [[Indian Ocean]] south of [[Indonesia]] and northwest of Australia. It was first discovered by the the British on December 25, 1643, hence the name of the island. The [[United Kingdom]] handed over sovereignty of the island to [[Australia]] in 1958 and it has remained in Australia's control since. <br /> <br /> Christmas Island should not be confused with Kiritimati (formerly called Christmas Island; Kiritimati is the Gilbertese spelling of Christmas), which is an island in the Republic of Kiribati (pronounced Kiribass) &lt;ref&gt; https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kr.html &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Geography ==<br /> The total area of Christmas Island is 135 square kilometres, roughly about 3/4 the size of [[Washington D.C]]. It is almost totally covered by tropical rain forests and in fact 63% of the Island is now a National Park. <br /> <br /> == Population ==<br /> The population of the island is estimated at 1,402 people. The island itself having no indigenous people is mostly made up of Chinese (70%) and European (20%) immigrants.<br /> <br /> == Bibliography == <br /> <br /> * [https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kt.html CIA Factbook]<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Cotton&diff=114604 2007-04-18T10:51:45Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>''The Bible forbids the wearing cotton mixed with polyester.''<br /> <br /> What on earth are you talking about? Leviticus 19:19 reads &quot;...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.&quot; Linen - not cotton, or polyester, and wool, not cotton, or polyester.<br /> <br /> It depends what translation you are reading, doesn't it? The American Standard Version has ''neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.'' and the New International Version has ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.''<br /> <br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19&amp;version=8<br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&amp;version=31;<br /> [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==and God willing, will be for a very long time==<br /> <br /> This doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Cotton&diff=114603 2007-04-18T10:49:49Z

<p>Aloysius: </p> <hr /> <div>''The Bible forbids the wearing cotton mixed with polyester.''<br /> <br /> What on earth are you talking about? Leviticus 19:19 reads &quot;...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.&quot; Linen - not cotton, or polyester, and wool, not cotton, or polyester.<br /> <br /> It depends what translation you are reading, doesn't it? The American Standard Version has ''neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.'' and the New International Version has ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.''<br /> <br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19&amp;version=8<br /> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&amp;version=31;<br /> [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Corpse&diff=114586 2007-04-18T09:34:50Z

<p>Aloysius: New page: ==This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!== I'm not sure there's really very much more to add. ~~~~</p> <hr /> <div>==This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!==<br /> <br /> I'm not sure there's really very much more to add. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 05:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)</div>

Aloysius