Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Standard Model

2012-08-03T23:52:21Z

AndyFranklinson: Undo revision 991740 by Aschlafly (talk)

[[Image:Mioss.jpg|thumb|400px|right|The Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Interactions]]
The '''Standard Model''' of [[Particle|particle]] physics is a [[quantum field theory]] that explains [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetism]], [[Strong nuclear force|strong]] and [[Weak interaction|weak]] [[Nuclear|nuclear]] interactions in a unified framework. It is a non-[[abelian]] gauge theory with the gauge [[Group (mathematics)|group]] [[Unitary group|SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)]].

It was formulated in the 1970s and has withstood all experimental tests. It has only been modified by adding mass to the electron neutrino. Physicists have just announced the discovery of its most enigmatic prediction, the [[Higgs boson]].

[[category: physics]]

Talk:Standard Model

2012-08-03T23:51:55Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Materialism */

==Materialism==
OK...Can someone explain why the Standard Model "relies heavily on materialism?" Is it because it explains interactions through Feynman graphs? --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 13:53, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
:OK, I've been asking this for weeks; I'm removing that bit now. --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 19:51, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Standard Model

2012-08-02T17:53:36Z

AndyFranklinson: Created page with "==Materialism== OK...Can someone explain why the Standard Model "relies heavily on materialism?" Is it because it explains interactions through Feynman graphs? --~~~~"

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-07-29T00:03:19Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Gravity well */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

==Andromeda galaxy (cont.)==
:''Moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]
My take on this is pretty simple. As a matter of ''distance'' between here and there, ''billions of light years'' are appropriate; if science says that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away from earth, then that's fine. If there are other galaxies measured in terms of "billions" of light years away, that's also fine. However, if they say it ''proves'' that the universe is billions of years old as a result of their measurements, then there is a problem. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, but He created the light first, and that includes all of that light between earth and all of those stars and galaxies all those billions of light years away. That light was put there instantaneously. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:27, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Depending on whether this discussion goes down that route, maybe this should be moved to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] since at the very least Kara's post goes that way. I won't get involved for more or less obvious reasons, but AiG gives a very good [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove reply] to the "created light in-transit" argument at least:
::Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.
::But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this.
:I'll leave it at that. The [[Starlight problem]] article could use a once-over to say the least, though. There are plenty of sources and developments available, even when you only focus on pro-Creationist ones. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The [[Starlight problem]] is a puzzle for both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] views. Actually, it's a bigger problem for atheistic views, because those views cannot accommodate the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects as referenced by the AiG quote above.

:: I'm fine with moving this discussion to [[Talk:Starlight problem]] if preferred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The point I was trying to make is the same as Karajou's. ''Distance'' is not debatable whereas time is. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Distance is debatable too, because it relies on some unverifiable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Just as a quick aside, Andy I am curious about this statement: ''the explanation that some of the light in the sky is show for people on earth. That show would presumably include some special effects''. Can you clarify for me? I don't understand what you mean. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have a question about your statement too. In short, if God puts lights in the Heaven's for the entertainment of Mankind - a beautifully frivolous act - why would he not do other actions for Mankind of similarly beautiful yet frivolous intent - such as save the victims of 9/11, prevent Hurricane Katrina, prevent the Tsunami of Japan or any of the other natural and unnatural calamities to befall Mankind? It is illogical to say he would do one, but not the other, and I can't figure out if it's tautological or not? [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 17:56, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Fireworks shows are not evidence of distant stars. Part of what we see could be merely a light show in the sky.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::OK, so a supernova could be interpreted as action for man to enjoy and wonder at? I don't mean to be argumentative, just curious. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]

:::::::The [[starlight problem]] superficially suggests distances too far for '''''any''''' theory, biblical or atheistic. To make sense of it, one should consider that apparent distance may be part of the show - like the appearance of depth in great works of art, such as the [[Mona Lisa]]. Surely the landscape in the background of that painting is not really located as it appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::But the starlight problem isn't a problem for atheistic theories. Isn't it? Don't they just say "x galaxy is at y distance hence the universe is z old"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Doesn't that imply, as the AiG quote above says, that God is creating an illusion and deceiving human beings? That doesn't sound like God. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:12, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it suggests god is making an illusion. Its only deceiving if you expect the universe to be billions of years old. If you reconcile it being 6000 then it is just gods work 9at least, as far as I can tell - I am not fully convinced of creationism yet). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::I do reject a [[double standard]], and hope you do also. The apparent distances are greater than what what is possible under an atheistic view of the universe too.

::::::::::God isn't deceiving anyone, at least not any more than how Jesus described that the truth is hidden from the intellectually arrogant. Humble logic shows there is no deception ... or any difficulty if distance itself is part of the show.

::::::::::The atheistic explanation of the apparent distance being due to a 4th dimension -- the equivalent of an expanding surface of a balloon rapidly stretching the perceived distance along the surface -- is likewise available to a biblical view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I must say I do like the idea of god creating some of the beauty in the heavens to enrich our lives. one could even suggest that [http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/02/26/helix_nebula.jpg this] is a sign left for us under the "show" interpretation. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:17, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Clearly there is much spectacular beauty in the world in addition to what is needed to make things work. I don't find anything implausible about some distance artwork being included. There is certainly no logical difficulty with distance being part of the work. Great painters have been tried to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Also, a perception of distance can make things look better for reasons other than art. Think about new television sets, HD flat screens for example. They are built so the picture itself has a sense of depth not to improve the art of what is being watched but to improve the clarity of the image. So depth/distance improves clarity as well. P.S. Sorry to continually bother you on your own talk-page but I don't often discuss this sot of thing so I am finding this discussion philosophically fascinating. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: A painting is clearly a painting. It clearly isn't meant to be taken as a real depiction. However, I don't see how it's clear that the night sky is a work of art and the apparent distances not to be taken seriously. The apparent great distances are causing people to abandon the Biblical view and embrace the [[Big Bang theory]]. Why would God put such a feature in his work of art? And do you have any Biblical proof that God meant the sky to be taken as the same way one takes a painting? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:48, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

<---------
Hebrews 2:8 says, ''Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him,'' which may be interpreted to say God created the heavens (i.e. universe) for humans, to be under subjection to humans (or another way, for their entertainment, but it could also mean for human economic exploitation). Genesis 1:28 says, ''Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ...every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'' While God's command to subdue the earth may be interpreted to read God signed onto offshore drilling, this passage is more narrow and specifically references the earth. My overall point is, scientists are no better understanding any of these matters, or the relevence of these questions, than any garden variety bible thumper with an IQ of 49. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:23, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:As interesting as this discussion has been I still believe science on the size of the universe. A logically it ''must'' be mindbogglingly huge as, like I said above, there are 100 billion galaxies! You need an awful lot of space to make them all fit! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm having this same discussion elsewhere, that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science. Seems a pretty round about way to prove a moot point. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::''that the infinite universe is fixed and measurable, and current studies are neither facts or truth, but they are science'' I don't understand this sentence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:36, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::This references an ongoing discussion at RW that sparked alot of interests. That's about where I left off this afternoon. They even have a unit of measurement ( parsecs ) that relates somehow to lightyears. And the infinitte universe is 13.7 billion lightyears in circumference, diameter, width, or something (using Wikipedia as a source, I guess). It's all science. You can't argue with facts or science (and this is the stuff they stick in innocent childrens heads...). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:47, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Is that the "anti"-Conservapedia site? I had a look there yesterday. I don't mind discussion with opposing points of view but I dislike the swearing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:51, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The only opposing views you get there is over the level of abuse and swearing that should be heaped upon their targets. Other than that, it's a pretty closed-minded group of ideologues. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::So far I have enjoyed it here so I see no reason to want to go elsewhere for discussion. And I am a christian and I get the idea they are hostile towards religion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

==39 billion light years away?==

I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.

PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Wouldn't that depend upon how fast the light traveled at the time of origin (creation or big bang or whatever)? Perhaps light traveled at a fast rate initially, and slowed over time? 39 billion or 13 billion would not be a constant, only best guess estimate based on observation at this moment in time, and is slowing down. It's like throwing a rock in a pond -- the initial ripples occur very fast, but over time as it spreads further out it slows down. Nothing is constant; everything is constantly changing. So whatever the distance observed today, it's only an approximation based upon limited data from the initial moment of origin. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::If everything is constantly changing, when will the atomic number of hydrogen become something other than 1? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:33, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Don't know; 30 or 40 billion years, maybe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, no. The atomic number of hydrogen is not going to change in 30 billion years, or ever. Do you know what an atomic number is?
::::::Actually, did you even read the article? Because it addresses the hypothesis that the speed of light has changed, and unless you have some incredible data regarding the fine structure constant that nobody else knows about (which wouldn't be surprising given your edit pattern), you would be well served to discard that rather silly hypothesis.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:46, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===digression on atomic weights & ''ad hominems''===

:::::::You're talking to the clown who thinks the Superbowl is like the Rugby World Cup. Of course he doesn't know what an atomic number is. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 19:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Rachel, no, I don't know what an atomic number is, nor how that relates to the Starlight Problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:51, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::It relates to your claim that everything is constantly changing. This is not true. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:00, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::And by the way, Rob, it is not like throwing a rock in a pond. Light doesn't travel through a medium, like water waves do. And I'm pretty sure that if you came up with that little rationalization all by yourself, a scientist has already considered it, tested it, and rejected it. In this case, about 125 years ago, the Michaelson Morley experiment.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::Ok, fine. Neither one of you answered my question. Or if you did, not a such a way an adult of average intelligence, or child, could understand. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The fact is that this is beyond children or those of average intelligence, but I can try to explain it for you as simply as possible. Now, are you aware that energy cannot be created or destroyed? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Folks, personal insults against Rob are out of place here.

As to the scientific question, there is a logical circularity in claims of how far light has traveled before seen on Earth. Assumptions need to be set forth more clearly, as Rob was pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:A constant speed of light is not an assumption: it's a fact. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:17, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::Please explain how you would test that "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Simple. Given E=mc2 a varying speed of light just isn't possible, because it would change the amount of energy in the universe which is a complete no-no. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::*Q. Let's assume the universe is expanding, but slowing down from its initial rate of expansion; wouldn't measurements in light years at this moment in time, today, only be an expression of what it is now at this very moment, or only an average based on a declining rate of speed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, I'd like to go back to your argument that people claim to have seen stars 39 billion light years away. i did as you suggested and searched Google for ("observable star" "39 billion light years") and got zero hits. Can you please provide me with the reference that I am unable to find? Many thanks.[[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 20:29, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::No, Rob, they would not. The speed of light is independent of the expansion of the universe, or anything else; that is the principle at the heart of Special Relativity. When we measure something to be 300 light years away, it is 300 light years away. We can use redshift to measure its speed relative to us, but the speed of light is a constant, period. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::So something that is 300 light years away will be 300 + whatever the rate of expansion is in x number of years (or light years, whichever is your preferred measurement)? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:52, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::George, in other words, you don't have a test for your assertion that the speed of light must have always been constant is a "fact". If there is no test, then it is not a scientific "fact".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::There is a test, a very simple one - take repeated measurements of the speed of light and see if it varies by more than the error bars of the measuring apparatus. That's been done and it never does. However the test isn't necessary because, thanks to E=mc2, the speed of light ''can't'' change. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 20:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Andy, if you read the article, you will see that there is indeed a test of the c-decay hypothesis. It involves measuring the fine structure constant for both near and far stars, and using that to find the speed of light at those times. The speed of light has not changed, nor is there any mechanism by which it could be changed. If it were to be decaying, we should be able to detect the decay even today. George's observation about the E=mc^2 problem is also a perfectly good way to disprove c-decay; it would violate conservation of energy and that is a very serious obstacle for a hypothesis to overcome.
:::::::And Scott, you won't find any references for observed stars 39 billion light years away because no such thing exists. The universe is estimated to have a total diameter of 78 billion light years, so people have at times incorrectly surmised that we can see half of that distance away, 39 billion light years. In reality, the observable universe is approximately 13 billion light years in radius, which corresponds nicely with modern cosmology, which says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was opaque to radiation (i.e. light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::None of this answers a simple question -- was an object at 39 billion lightyears at a closer range 2 billion lightyears ago in an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:58, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::What do you mean "2 billion lightyears ago"? Do you even know what a light year is? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::No. What is it? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:05, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::It's the distance light travels through a vacuum in a year; about 9.4 million billion miles, or three-tenths of a parsec. It's a unit of distance, not of time, so you can't have "2 billion light years ago." --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::It's a measurement of distance. How far light travels in a vacuum in a year. Not a measurement of time. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:08, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::(EC) Good. Thank you. What is the rate of expansion of the universe -- in lightyears or whaterver your preferred standard of measurement is? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::About 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::Kilometers per second, or <s>a little less than</s> about 45 miles per second, I assume. What is Mpc? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, my bad. Mpc is megaparsecs. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)

===gravitationally bound and unbound objects===

::::::::::::::::So an object at x light years most probably was closer at an earlier time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::No, that depends on gravitational binding. Space isn't expanding between gravitationally bound objects. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:32, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::::::That's not a flat no, and that's why I asked "most probably"; some objects may be drifting further away with an expanding universe? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::::::::I can give a flat no to that. Objects aren't drifting away; space is expanding between objects that aren't gravitationally bound. What that basically means is that unbound objects have two distances from us; comoving distance - how far away they actually are now, if they still exist - and light travel distance, which is how far the light from them has travelled to reach us and therefore how many years in the past we're seeing them. Gravitationally bound objects, though, basically have only one distance (it's not quite that simple, but it's close enough for government work) because the space in between is not expanding. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:42, 30 January 2012 (EST)
<----

I sort of follow that -- and sort not. Space is expanding between unbound objects but distances are not? That's not exactly what you said, but it is what it sounded like. A moment ago you said lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time. Now you've basically inverted that saying lightyears are measurements of time. I don't wish to sound pedantic or critical, you really are helping sort this out. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:53, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Well not really. What happens is that because space is expanding, by the time the light that leaves an object reaches us the object is further away than the distance the light has travelled. Imagine I'm standing in the back of a truck driving south at 50 ft/s, while you run north at 10 ft/s. At 200 feet from you I shoot an arrow at you, which travels at 100 ft/s. By the time the arrow lands at your feet it has travelled 220 feet, but the distance between us is 320 feet. It's sort of like that. If the light travel distance to an object is 10 billion light years (bly) then we're seeing the object as it looked 10 billion years ago (sorry, I'm an OEC) but also as it looked when it was, say, 6 bly away. By the time we see it the object is maybe 23 bya away. Light travels at a constant speed through space that is (mostly) expanding at an accelerating rate. It does get confusing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::So the distances are constantly changing, correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::Between unbound objects, yes. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:23, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ok. So that has nothing to do with atomic weight of hydrogen, does it? And we don't have to revisit that issue again, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc2. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Depends what you mean. Existing matter is not expanding. New matter is not appearing from nowhere. However matter is just a kind of energy, and sometimes other forms of energy can convert into matter. So the amount of matter does fluctuate a bit, but the overall energy remains constant. Weirdly, thanks to gravity being negative energy, it remains constant at a value of zero. Who said it had to make sense? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::That makes sense and I believe it. Let's return to unbound objects. The space expansion means distance expansion between unbound objects. Is there space expansion and/or changing distances between unbound and bound objects? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:57, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Well yes. Distance is just a word for the size of dimensions in space. Like I said earlier, if you're a megaparsec away from something and not gravitationally bound to it the distance is increasing at about 74 km/s. However between bound objects there is no expansion. Distances might change, but only because of normal motion. Even Newtonian mechanics gives a good approximation of that. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::: A group of bound objects, like a galaxy, will experience expansion relative to other galaxies to which it is not gravitationally bound. That is why we see far away galaxies expanding away from us, but not the galaxies in our Local Group. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 23:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::In fact we're bound all the way out to the Virgo Supercluster, if I remember correctly. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::The earth and moon are bound objects whose distance apart is relatively unchanging in an expanding universe, whereas the earth and unbound object K, measurable at a distance of L light years this evening, will be at M light years + 45 miles x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours tomorrow evening at this same time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:27, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::It'll be at L plus 45 miles x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours tomorrow evening at this same time, yes. Nearly 4 million miles farther away. The distance between us and the Sun in 23 days, and accelerating because more distance means more expansion. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 02:52, 31 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::So does this mean the earth is going to crash in to the sun someday? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:38, 31 January 2012 (EST)

===Rachel & Scott discuss among themselves and wait for Andy to cite his sources===
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I don't doubt there are stars that far away. I am interested in the people that have ''observed'' them, which Aschlafly has numerous references to. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::::Nobody's observed them. The most distant object anyone has ever observed is the galaxy UDFj-39546284, which - if it still exists, which is unlikely - is 31.7 billion light years away and is now way outside the observable universe. The light from it has travelled 13.2 billion light years to get to us. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::::And that's 31.7 billion light years comoving distance, 13.2 billion light years in light travel distance. Meaning, we see it as it was, billions of years ago, and it is WAY farther away by now. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Aschlafly has "numerous references" to stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind about this, and I trust that as an educator he will want to share them. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] 2 billion lightyears ago...wait, what? 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Rob, I posted on your talk page that the rate of expansion is very small, considering the distances involved. Two objects that are relatively strongly bound gravitationally don't experience the expansion because gravity resists the very small force driving them apart. However, between two objects far enough away for gravity to be very weak, the expansion is more noticeable. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 22:06, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Gravity well ==

The article states about one of the models: "As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of creation week were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe. According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in 'Earth time.'" Schlafly, tell me, if GR is "liberal claptrap," then how can this mechanism work?! --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, can you please explain the resolution of this apparent paradox? :3 --[[User:AndyFranklinson|AndyFranklinson]] 20:03, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Starlight problem

2012-07-24T00:00:13Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Gravity well */ new section

User talk:AndyFranklinson

2012-07-16T13:16:17Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Jokes */

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:08, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Infinity, and relativity ==

Greetings. I saw your explanation of things relating to relativity, and the equation for relativistic momentum, and I like it. You should know that we need people at Ameriwiki who can write well about science and math. You should consider contributing there. The site is very new, and has no article for relativity. You would get to explain the whole thing in your own words.

On another matter, I think you overreacted a bit to the infinity stuff. I believe that it ''is'' legitimate to say that "the limit is infinite". But you are right in that you can't say that the limit is equal to a specific thing unless that specific thing is just the right sort of infinity. I will fix it. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:OK, thank you! And I'll check out that site! I'll be more than happy to write articles on relativity and other topics in math and physics. (That I know.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:58, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, checked out the site--not helping a conservative site like that. Sorry. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
I may have misled you with what I said. Please contact me at sam4557@gmail.com. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity: new page ==

I have created a page on which rebuttals to the "counterexamples" page can be presented perhaps more clearly. See [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:51, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:Thanks for the link, Sam! I'll be sure to add some more stuff soon! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:54, 25 January 2012 (EST)

==Jokes==

If you're going to joke around, do it in a way that others know you're only kidding. I reverted your changes to Andy's talk page. Your reference to a cartoon on another website was obscure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:22, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
:-sigh-
:OK, is it good now? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-06-27T00:20:16Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Bending of light in Newtonian gravity */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-06-26T00:56:33Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Bending of light in Newtonian gravity */ new section

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-05-12T00:33:03Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-29T01:36:33Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is ''''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-27T13:42:34Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? */ new section

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

(1) : spelling of ''Cockcroft corrected [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:22, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::And that doesn't sound like someone who actually read the paper! Drawing your conclusions just from your interpretation of the abstract (and wishful thinking) doesn't make a compelling argument. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How does Asclafly explain electron-positron annihilation? How do you explain that quantum electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory) is the most accurately tested theory in physics? What's the theoretical basis for the spin of the electron if you deny SR? And are you telling me that Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Galilean transformations? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen [[Counterexamples to Relativity|counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity]], but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::You're getting a bit muddled here. One valid counterexample can deliver a fatal, knockdown blow to a purely philosophical / logical argument. Scientific theories (and their corresponding mathematical equations), however, are judged on the width and depth of their explanatory power, rather than on their ability to hold true in ''all'' cases. This is why we can still use Newton's equations to describe the motion of everything we can reasonably expect to bump into in everyday life. They might not hold true in ''all'' cases, but they still have sufficient explanatory bite to be very, very useful.

:::::::::::If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning, then you'll have to reject Newton's equations because of the instances where they fall down and fail to make accurate predictions. I'm pretty sure that you don't want to do that. --[[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 20:23, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Andy, I think you are underestimating both the scientific savvy and the inquisitiveness of the contributors here. First, as you well know, but presumably don't like, those "counterexamples" are all wrong, and probably everyone here, except you, knows it. They have been refuted on the "rebuttal" page. Second, and this is my more important point, your claim that "few people are interested in reviewing more precise data" is not correct. I would be interested in reviewing such data, as would nearly everyone else here. Please post the data. Don't bother with the full observed precession of 5600 (or whatever) seconds relative to the old equinoctial frame, or 574 seconds with the new celestial frame. However that is calculated, the precession, after accounting for all the usual factors like gravitational effects of other planets and solar oblateness, is supposed to be 42.98 seconds or so. Please give a citation for the data showing that the GR figure is wrong. This argument has gone on for too long. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

===Robert Dicke===
*Aschlafly, have you any reason to believe that R. Dicke had any problem with the special theory of relativity?
*Your reverence for R. Dicke is understandable, but surprising in light of your statement about the equivalence principle: ''It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.'' R. Dicke took quite an effort to perform experiments on this ''hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance''.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:12, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

::Robert Dicke's criticism of the '''general''' theory of relativity may be well known, but we are here firmly in the realm of the '''special''' theory of relativity. And he didn't have problems with that one - so why have you? Are you a more able physicist than Robert Dicke? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons ==

William Bertozzi [http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf performed some experiments] in 1964 to exemplify the effects of the theory of special relativity. W. Bertozzi undertook the effort to measure the values involved as directly as possible. He writes:
:''In the past few decades, the successful operation of multi-MeV accelerators and the planning and interpretations of many high-energy physics experiments have affirmed and illustrated the results of special relativity. However, because these efforts generally involved many other concepts, the relations of relativity are not demonstrable from the data in a simple quantitative manner. The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment that was performed to help fill the need for such simple and direct data for the teaching of relativity.'' (p. 551)
And from the concluding remarks:
:''The Newtonian relation, usually adequate for the description of the motion of bodies at very low speeds, is obviously in disagreement with this high-speed data. Equally apparent is the conformity of the experimental data to the Einstein relation with its prediction of a limiting speed.''
So, these experiments seem to be performed with Aschlafly in mind! Perhaps Aschlafly can explain the data in a non-relativistic way (via quantum dynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even nuance of ἰδού?)
But there are even [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977 experiments for undergraduates] which show relativistic effects:
:''We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a \beta -source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data. '' Robert E. Marvel, Michael F. Vineyard
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:02, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Why should he? It is a relatively simple demonstration of a basic principle. Do you intend to ignore everyone who didn't get a Nobel prize? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I find it fascinating how you on the one hand use the Nobel Prize as a source of authority when it hasn't been awarded for things you don't believe in and on the other hand berate the Nobel Prize as nothing more than liberal claptrap when it hasn't been awarded for things you do believe in. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 14:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== A reminder ==

Aschlafly, could you please answer the questions in the questions in the section above: [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton|A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton ]]?

I'm interested in your interpretation of their results. (But please take into consideration that a chemical reaction releases perhaps the 1,000,000th part of the energy per unit of mass as the reaction observed by Cockcroft and Walton.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:28, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

== Does Andy Schlafly Understand what E=mc^2 means? ==

Aschlafly, do you know what E=mc^2 means? You say that "E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light." No. What it says is that matter is just another form of energy. That's it! It says nothing about unification of electromagnetism and gravity. Moreover, the m in the equation is inertial mass, not gravitational mass! If you look at any decent book on SR, it is the inertial mass that appears in the equations of relativistic energy-momentum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-19T00:13:04Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Answer to the above */

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

===Answer to the above===

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-speech.html], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:"This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically"--It is more correct to say that the formula cannot be mathematically derived from first principles (in the way that Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law of universal gravitation) rather than that the formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically. Indeed, experimental observation reveals that the added energy is proportional to the mass lost in a linear fashion, with <math>c^2</math> as the slope. These are the same sorts of phyiscal observations that allow you to deduce laws like <math>F = ma</math> (apply varying amounts of force to a mass and see what the resulting acceleration is). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:38, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::The formula cannot be derived ''in any sensible way'', not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Could you please give us some references to these failed attempts? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:22, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::::This took only one search on the internet: [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes 7 failed attempts to prove E=mc2].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, your reading of Cockcroft lecture is insufficient. He writes: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units, '' so he thinks that energy can be provided by decreasing the mass of an object. And if you do a little math, you can see for yourself that he uses Einstein's formula to calculate the amount.
:::::As for the ''seven failed attempts'': Even if there were mathematical errors in the papers as your ''"source"'' suggests, it is not clear that they render the calculations invalid!
:::::I'm impressed which sources you are willing to ignore, and which seem to be absolutely acceptable,,,
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
::::I assume you've read the book and not just that chronology, Andy? Looks like an interesting read, even though the [http://einsteinsmistakes.com/the_author_5.html author] is a [[Professor values|professor]] in liberal [[Vermont]] and has written a [http://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-A-Modern-Introduction/dp/0971313415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333999210&sr=8-1 textbook] on special relativity. Incidentally, amazon.com gives access to a few pages of "Einstein's mistakes". Let me quote from page 330: "His (Einstein's) first derivations of this equation, although flawed, convinced physicists that the energy-mass relation ought to be of general validity. In 1905, Einstein did not have available the mathematical tensor techniques needed for a correct derivation of this formula, but he instigated the theoretical investigations that later led von Laue and Klein to the correct derivation." Could you explain in more detail why you think the attempts failed? Von Laue and Klein's attempts would be particularly interesting, because your reference claims they were correct. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper? I doubt it, as your statement isn't entirely correct. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:06, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::You mean the paper by Hecht (2011)? That's also interesting. Let me quote from the Conclusions (I happen to have access to the paper): "Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E=mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F=ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0=mc2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F=ma." ... "That aside, countless experiments from Cockcroft and Walton63 to Rainville et al.64 have, with increasing accuracy, confirmed that E0=mc2 is one of the greatest insights of the 20th century." But maybe that's not the paper you mean? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:18, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the [[Theory of Relativity]] in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. [[Robert Dicke]], the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the [[Nobel Prize]] because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::And that doesn't sound like someone who actually read the paper! Drawing your conclusions just from your interpretation of the abstract (and wishful thinking) doesn't make a compelling argument. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How does Asclafly explain electron-positron annihilation? How do you explain that quantum electrodynamics (which is a relativistic theory) is the most accurately tested theory in physics? What's the theoretical basis for the spin of the electron if you deny SR? And are you telling me that Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Galilean transformations? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

===Robert Dicke===
*Aschlafly, have you any reason to believe that R. Dicke had any problem with the special theory of relativity?
*Your reverence for R. Dicke is understandable, but surprising in light of your statement about the equivalence principle: ''It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.'' R. Dicke took quite an effort to perform experiments on this ''hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance''.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:12, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

== Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons ==

William Bertozzi [http://muj.optol.cz/richterek/data/media/ref_str/bertozzi1964.pdf performed some experiments] in 1964 to exemplify the effects of the theory of special relativity. W. Bertozzi undertook the effort to measure the values involved as directly as possible. He writes:
:''In the past few decades, the successful operation of multi-MeV accelerators and the planning and interpretations of many high-energy physics experiments have affirmed and illustrated the results of special relativity. However, because these efforts generally involved many other concepts, the relations of relativity are not demonstrable from the data in a simple quantitative manner. The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment that was performed to help fill the need for such simple and direct data for the teaching of relativity.'' (p. 551)
And from the concluding remarks:
:''The Newtonian relation, usually adequate for the description of the motion of bodies at very low speeds, is obviously in disagreement with this high-speed data. Equally apparent is the conformity of the experimental data to the Einstein relation with its prediction of a limiting speed.''
So, these experiments seem to be performed with Aschlafly in mind! Perhaps Aschlafly can explain the data in a non-relativistic way (via quantum dynamics, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even nuance of ἰδού?)
But there are even [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5977 experiments for undergraduates] which show relativistic effects:
:''We have developed an undergraduate laboratory experiment to make independent measurements of the momentum and kinetic energy of relativistic electrons from a \beta -source. The momentum measurements are made with a magnetic spectrometer and a silicon surface-barrier detector is used to measure the kinetic energy. A plot of the kinetic energy as a function of momentum compared to the classical and relativistic predictions clearly shows the relativistic nature of the electrons. Accurate values for the rest mass of the electron and the speed of light are also extracted from the data. '' Robert E. Marvel, Michael F. Vineyard
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:02, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Then why hasn't William Bertozzi won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Why should he? It is a relatively simple demonstration of a basic principle. Do you intend to ignore everyone who didn't get a Nobel prize? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 23:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a [[Nobel Prize]], given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any [[Nobel Prize]] been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I find it fascinating how you on the one hand use the Nobel Prize as a source of authority when it hasn't been awarded for things you don't believe in and on the other hand berate the Nobel Prize as nothing more than liberal claptrap when it hasn't been awarded for things you do believe in. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 14:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the [[Nobel Prize]] committee, and that's worth pointing out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-06T00:34:09Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Some questions */ new section

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-04-03T00:03:10Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, waves aren't subject to gravity? As in, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't (say) the Dirac spinor wavefunction of an electron subject to electromagnetic interactions in QED? Once we are able to quantize GR, won't we have something similar? (i.e. effects of gravity on the motion of some massive particle.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:23, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yes, waves are subject to gravity. A good example is gravitational lensing, in which gravity deflects the path of electromagnetic ''waves''. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict this, although only general relativity's predictions are consistent with the data. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gravity-induced+quantum+interference&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=DohdT7f1IoGogwelhfGhCw&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA In quantum mechanics gravity can also cause interference]. So, yes, gravity does indeed act on waves. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:35, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-21T18:46:31Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-19T00:00:53Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-18T17:53:49Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-18T14:18:38Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Grand Unified Theory... what!? */

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-11T13:24:48Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Wave particle Duality */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, waves aren't subject to gravity? As in, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't (say) the Dirac spinor wavefunction of an electron subject to electromagnetic interactions in QED? Once we are able to quantize GR, won't we have something similar? (i.e. effects of gravity on the motion of some massive particle.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:23, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-11T13:24:01Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Wave particle Duality */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait, waves aren't subject to gravity? Is in, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't (say) the Dirac spinor wavefunction of an electron subject to electromagnetic interactions in QED? Once we are able to quantize GR, won't we have something similar? (i.e. effects of gravity on the motion of some massive particle.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 09:23, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-07T00:43:18Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-02T01:47:10Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-02T00:55:01Z

AndyFranklinson: /* GUT */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-02-03T00:28:30Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Recent reversion */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-26T21:15:49Z

AndyFranklinson:

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

1: ''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.Sound like global warming?''
:This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist.

:It should be noted that this sounds nothing like global warming. With global warming there have been an extremely large number of observations made and there is debate as to how the data should be interpreted. With gravitational waves there is simply no positive data.

2: ''The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity''
:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the eccentricity is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
3: ''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.[4] The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''
:Saying this a bit prematurely, aren't you?

4: ''The Pioneer anomaly.''
:Wasn't this shown to be due to heat engines?
5: ''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
:See above
6: ''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
7: ''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
:Uh-oh....the dark energy/cosmological constant argument....That term was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
8: ''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."

 
:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
 

:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

 

:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.

9: ''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
:You have to take them going to 0 at the same time! It's nonsense for a massive particle to travel at c!

10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunterstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.

11:''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
:What? Is has been observed
12: ''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
13: ''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 20,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>

14: ''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.

::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.

:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
15:

16:

17:

18:

19:

20:

21:

22:

23:

24:

25:

26:

27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
:This is merely a restatement of item 10, (see above).

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Myths]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-26T21:03:08Z

AndyFranklinson: #10

== #10 ==

You said that "Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force." I might be making a mistake, but shouldn't you be a little careful about this? If you rotate the frame, it's just fine as an inertial frame. But obviously, the force will have a different direction. But when you apply it to the two frames at hand, there is no rotation--just translation so the force has the same direction. (Also, does the other stuff I added look good?) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:AndyFranklinson

2012-01-25T21:54:17Z

AndyFranklinson: /* Relativity: new page */

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-25T00:49:21Z

AndyFranklinson:

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-24T00:47:21Z