Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Global warming

2014-02-24T15:24:13Z

BarrySM: /* Summary of Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Warming */

''See also [[Counterexamples to Global Warming|Counterexamples to global warming]]''

[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are almost cooling<ref>Roberts, Greg. "Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away." April 18, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191</ref>.]]
The '''global warming''' theory is the [[liberal]] hoax<ref>Cringing Over Climategate [http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/climategate-scandal-science-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html Forbes], 12/2/2009</ref><ref>Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ Forbes], 11/23/2011</ref> that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the human pollution of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption.

'''''The most accurate data -- from satellites -- confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998'''''.<ref>http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/12/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-show-global-warming-is-on-a-plateau-2475696.html</ref> The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, Jan. 12 2011, NASA]</ref> when the more scientific atmospheric temperature do not show such an increase.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/not-hot-ocean-sst-around-the-usa-not-anywhere-near-record-levels/ "Not so hot – ocean temperatures around the USA are not anywhere near record levels"]</ref> Moreover, natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> [[Global cooling]], a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref>"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html Counterpunch], June 2007</ref> The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria.

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref> In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing, but the effects of the scandal still linger.<ref>Hilary Whiteman. [http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/?hpt=Sbin 'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty], ''CNN World'', July 07, 2010.</ref>

Former vice president [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying{{Citation needed|{{2013-04-05}}}}.

==Summary of Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Warming==
The following facts can help dissuade even the most illogical of liberals from believing in the flawed theory of anthropogenic global warming.
=== Temperature Flat ===
The overall temperature has been flat for about 16 years. <ref> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html] </ref> .
=== Data Manipulation ===
Climate data stating otherwise has been proven to be manipulated. <ref> [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000] </ref>.
=== Alternate Causation ===
-Even if global warming did actually exist, the overall effect of human activities on global warming are minimal, if not nonexistent. <ref> [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-30/news/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830_1_cosmic-rays-aerosols-magnetic-field] </ref>
=== Common Sense ===
Every Summer the temperature rises. The alarmists do not see that it is a natural cycle and temperatures will drop again in Winter, yet when this is pointed out to them they claim to know about it already: however they will not, even in the face of this well known fact, admit that they are wrong! Even children understand the natural fluctuations in climate.

==Science of Global Warming==
===Presence of CO2===

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. Historically, Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the heating of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As the temperature rises, the [[solubility]] of carbon dioxide in ocean water is reduced<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/</ref>, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect. The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is about 392 ppm, which is the highest it has been in at least 800,000 years.<ref>"Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html NOAA], December 2011</ref>

===The Modern Warm Period===

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

Recent studies of the Milankovitch Cycles, which predict Earth's climate by studying changes in its orbit and axial tilt, suggest that we are currently 18,000 years into a 150,000 year period between ice ages. This would imply that we should expect the temperature to be rising anyway. A 2002 study by Berger and Loutre suggests 50,000 years of warmer weather before Earth begins to cool again, but that model incorroprated anthropogenic forces and concluded:
<blockquote>While combinations of natural forcings produce a gradual warming up to about 1960, none of them leads to a warming over the last 30 years (this period containing three major volcanic eruptions). In contrast, simulations incorporating only anthropogenic forcings reproduce the warming over the last three decades at a rate consistent with that observed, but underestimate the early 20th century warming. As a consequence, only the use of both natural and anthropogenic forcings allows to reproduce much of the observed decadal scale variations of the annual mean hemispheric temperature over the last 150 years.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.00287.x/full] Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study, May 2002</ref></blockquote>

It should be noted, however, that computer simulated climate models are often tweaked so they agree with the historical temperature record. There is no way to completely simulate all of the Earth's climate with a computer program.

===Sun Spots===
Sunspot activity is a factor in climate fluctuations, however, little details were known about how much of an impact these fluctuations had on the Earth's climate. During the deepest solar minimum ever recorded, from 2005 to 2010, NASA measured the Earth's energy balance, i.e. the amount of energy absorbed by the sun subtract the amount of energy lost to radiation into space. They concluded:
<blockquote>If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima. The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing. <ref>[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ NASA: Earth's Energy Imbalance] nasa.gov, January, 2012</ref></blockquote>
However, just because the sun isn't the dominate force, doesn't mean that it doesn't nonetheless have a significant impact upon the Earth's climate.

==Economics of Global Warming==
===Unnecessary Expansion of Government===
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html {{dead link}}</ref>

==Public Stances on Global Warming==
===Politicization of the Issue===

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming] {{dead link}}</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx] {{dead link}}</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009] {{dead link}}</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm] {{dead link}}</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

===Climate Change As A Cult===
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" <ref>Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009</ref>

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,
<blockquote>
"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.<ref>Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009</ref></blockquote>

===Politics of Global Warming and Dissent===
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.<ref>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/</ref></blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

===2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change===

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

===Evangelicals===
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man-made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market-based CO2 reductions such as a cap-and-trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Inaccuracies of Global Warming evidence==
===Climate "Science" Fraud===
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

===Liberal claims of "Consensus"===
Reports of a scientific "consensus" among scientists are similar to their one-sided support of other [[liberal]] policies and beliefs. For example, nearly 100% of political donations from professors are to [[Democrats]] rather than Republicans. Similarly, according to NASA, 97% of climate scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.<ref>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus</ref> These liberal scientists believe, or say they believe, that the Earth is warming overall, and that this warming, as well as other changes in climate patterns, is largely caused by human activities.<ref>Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change." April 9, 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>From "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html</ref> These allegations do not necessarily make the consensus true, as discussed throughout the referenced citation. Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming. However, according to some researchers, scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming theory offer a general lack of comparative credentials; proponents of man-made global warming argue that this has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting the theory for greater government control. Scientists skeptical of the theory question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> It has also been documented that on most college campuses criticism of the global warming theory is silenced or censored; evidence shows that scientists skeptical of AGW are being supressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

===Past Speculation===

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001</ref>

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992 on the doubtfulness of man-caused warming on Earth.

{{Cquote|Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>}}

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and "the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years - or sooner.<ref>[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf</ref>

===Natural Variability of the Climate System===
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

===Natural Climate Change on Other Planets===

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

===Al Gore's Claims===
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or climatize, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, in order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

===Scientists===

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

====Hal Lewis====
[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the [[global warming]] scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html</ref>

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


==Effects of Global Warming==
===Beneficial effects of Global Warming===
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs, while areas that already have hot climates will see no increase. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy as cooling is much more energy efficient. With the changes brought about by global warming more land that is not lost to desert and/or rising sea levels would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

===Reported effects of Climate Change===

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

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

== See Also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=67 Global Warming? Absolutely No Truth To It!]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference] {{dead link}}
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007. {{dead link}}
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Man made disasters]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-24T14:33:19Z

BarrySM: /* Section or new article on future knowledge */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== 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)

:::I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:04, 22 February 2014 (EST)

::::Well I went ahead and did it. Hope everyone likes it. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 09:33, 24 February 2014 (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)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

''Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.''--[[User:Matthewhammond|Matthewhammond]] 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you have a history [[Talk:Idou|of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you]]. If you take out your [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott], you'll find that '''neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder'''. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
==Hubris of Man==
I find [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=1064278&oldid=1064268 this edit] to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that '''all''' things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

:The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'' (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

==Distance of Oldest Star to Earth==
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)

:Articles are cited here for their facts, not for any additional liberal speculation or spin that is included. There is no atheistic reason to claim 6,000 light-years away if it were not true. The confirmation of the [[Bible]] by a scientific culture that tends to be atheistic in outlook is remarkable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 22 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for rephrasing that for me. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 10:28, 23 February 2014 (EST)

:::In all seriousness, though... The article is talking about the ''oldest'' star, not the ''farthest'' star. If we were citing it to mean that ''no'' star is farther than 6,000 light-years, then the source simply doesn't hold up. And if the source is not being cited for that reason, then the statement has no grounds. Could you further clarify, please? [[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 20:48, 23 February 2014 (EST)

::::The age of the universe is best estimated by looking at the oldest star, not a younger one. Claims of enormous distances for younger stars are disproven by the [[horizon problem]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 23 February 2014 (EST)

== Negative Numbers ==

Sorry for my misunderstanding, but how do any of the Bible passages cited provide examples of negative numbers, especially within multiplication? If we could provide that citation in-article, it would also improve the quality. [[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 20:51, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-23T15:36:33Z

BarrySM: New Section, as suggested in talk page

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=Isaac Newton, cornerstone of the scientific revolution, based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is the fact that the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science]] far ahead of its time. Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible by educating us about truth in the [[Universe]]. However, [[Bible denier]]s, such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution|evolutionist]]s, [[liberal denial|liberally deny]] the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]], the reference to the universe in [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10]], and the changing of [[Essay:Water into Wine|water into wine]] at the wedding feast.

==Geology==

===Massive regional floods===
[[Atheist]] scientists long opposed a [[young earth]] [[creation|created]] by [[God]] where cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] described in the [[Bible]], shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood in the region had indeed occured thousands of years ago. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be universally accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>[http://www.iafi.org/floods.html The Ice Age Flood Institute reports on the massive floods in the Northwest.]</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was proposed by [[creationist]] [[Antonio Snider-Pellegrini]] in 1859 based off of [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 1|Genesis 1:9-10]],<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html Christian Answers explains Antonio Snider's divine inspiration</ref> which states, {{cquote|And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.}} Because land is no longer all in [[Pangaea|one place]], this implies that the continents have shifted over the six millenia to their current positions. [[Atheists]] and [[scientist]]s who hadn't seen the light of [[creationism]] were in [[liberal denial]] about this concept for a century, until finally accepting its truth. This is just more data that the Bible knew millenia before [[secular]] [[science]] caught up.

===Underwater springs===
Only in modern times have scientists become aware of the enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans. However, the Bible repeatedly described this thousands of years earlier in [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Genesis 7:11]], which states, {{cquote|In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.}} Again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible states that, {{cquote|And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.}} This is ''obvious'' proof to all but [[liberals]] that the Bible had foreknowledge of subcrustal oceans, something the ancient Jews could not have possibly known, and thus proof of the Bible's God-given accuracy and divine nature.

==Agriculture==

===Malthusianism===
Since Thomas [[Malthus|Malthus's]] 1798 work, ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'', [[liberal]] [[intellectual]]s insisted that the world's population would grow faster than the [[food]] supply and result in mass starvation. However, there are examples in both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s of the food supply increasing to be more far plentiful than expected, mostly due to faith in [[God|God's]] powers and use of [[conservative]] [[economics]]. Indeed, in modern times [[obesity]] is far more prevalent and harmful than [[hunger]] worldwide, and food production far exceeds the ability to consume even in impoverished nations. Hunger remains a problem only in places with [[liberal]] and/or [[leftist]] political systems that impede food distribution or destroy the [[free market]].

==History==

===Great Flood ice mummy===
According to the Bible, a [[Great Flood]] occured around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries [[atheist]]s and [[liberals]] have mocked it, claiming that it was impossible. However, in 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered in the [[Alps]]. Scientists located a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, which was due to an extraordinary ice storm. By radiometric [[carbon dating]]<ref>http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/report/B44.pdf Radiocarbon dating of the Iceman Ötzi with
accelerator mass spectrometry</ref>, the scientists discovered that this massive ice storm occured 5300 years ago, which perfectly matches the [[Bible|Biblical]] Great Flood.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html PBS on the "Iceman" in the Alps</ref> This is is obvious proof of the Great Flood, as no natural occurence could possibly explain how somebody came to be preserved by ice in the [[Alps]].

===False theories===
Jesus's recognition that the truth would remain hidden from arrogant "intellectuals" while simultaneously revealed to humbler, [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|more openminded]] people. This foreshadowed the creation of theories to pull self-centered intellectual wannabees away from [[God]], such as the [[Theory of Evolution]], the [[Theory of Relativity]], the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[secular]] culture of [[abortion]], [[Communism]], and countless other [[liberal]] and [[atheist|atheistic]] ideas and ideologies.

===Mankind remains extant===
The Bible predicts that the end of [[mankind]] will not occur by chance, but rather at a time known only to [[God]]. Despite the extinction of many species each year throughout history, the expectation by scientists that Earth would have been hit by chance by a massive, extinction-causing meteor, and laws of probability that predict other immense catastrophes, mankind continues and Christianity grows just as Jesus predicted.

==Medicine and biology==

===Common DNA===
[[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_1|John 1:3]] explains that "All things were made by Him; not one thing was made without Him." If something had been made without Him then creatures would exist that had completely different DNA from other creatures.

===Psychiatry===
Modern medicine now realizes that obsessing with one's past is a big cause of psychiatric problems.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-flux/201104/5-ways-find-closure-the-past</ref> Jesus had the same insight 2000 years earlier: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the [[kingdom of God]]."<ref>Luke 9:62 ([[ESV]]).</ref>

===Obesity===
[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|187px|right|thumbnail|Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> According to the [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

The [[Saint Paul|Apostle Paul]] wrote that in the [[end times]], men would be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:1-4). In May of 2012, the [[World Health Organization]] reported that "Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980."<ref>[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ World Health Organization - obesity fact sheet]</ref> In 2008, more than 1.4 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight. Of these over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese.<ref>[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ World Health Organization - obesity fact sheet]</ref>

Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> In addition, [[Chuck Norris]] says the most common cause of obesity is a hedonistic lifestyle (see: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]). According to [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>

Christians have good reasons to believe a [[Hedonism|hedonist lifestyle]] is a causal factor of [[atheism]] (see: [[Causes of atheism]]).<ref>[http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate Why do atheists hate God?]</ref>

See also:
*[[Atheism and obesity]]
*[[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]
* [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

===Blood clotting on the eigth day===
In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===
The Bible puts the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest modern recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving all of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest human ancestor===
The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the most recent common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===
The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|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.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

===Eyesight===
The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

===Maximum human height===
Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

===Leprosy===
Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.{needs citation}

===Hygiene===
Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it was no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

===Digestive system===
It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

It is part of the Jewish kosher law to not eat milk with meat. In some Jewish homes they have separate refrigerators for meat and milk products. It comes from Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." There is evidence that the body has difficulty digesting both meat and milk at the same time.

Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].

===Feasibility of abiogenesis===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from non-living material, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

===Awareness while unborn===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling awareness, began while unborn.

===Embalming===
[[Mark_9-16_(Translated)#Chapter_14|Mark 14:3-8]] describes an embalming process to preserve a body after death, which was not discovered in the West until 1867.

===Significance of blood===
The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.<ref>[http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12_notes.htm Net Bible: Notes] to [http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12.htm#1234 Deuteronomy 12:23] {{dead link}}</ref>

===Menstruation===
The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref> Also, modern science has only very recently discovered that following such rules dramatically reduces the rate of [[illegitimacy]].<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity]</ref>

===Cloning===
{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet] {{dead link}}</ref> It should be noted, however, that this is not strictly 'cloning' as a clone would be identical to its original, most obviously in terms of its sex.

===Inbreeding===
Leviticus 18:7-11 elaborates in detail the relationships it regards as incestuous unions, to forbid inbreeding. Secular science was able to scientifically explain the mechanisms and risks of inbreeding only in modern times.

==Cosmology==

===Distance of Oldest Star to Earth===

The Book of Genesis implies that the distance of the oldest star to Earth is how far light would travel during the age of mankind: about 6000 light-years. In 2014, a team of researchers discovered that the oldest star is indeed only 6000 light-years away.<ref>http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/6012/the-oldest-star-in-the-known-universe</ref>

===Planet formation===
Theories of an old universe insisted that planet formation did not occur until long after the origin of the universe, contrary to the [[Book of Genesis]]. But in 2012 scientists announced the existence of planets that formed "at dawn of universe."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0330/Planets-found-at-dawn-of-universe-but-their-existence-is-a-mystery</ref>

===Extraterrestrial life===
For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Starlight Problem===
The [[Starlight Problem]] confounds atheistic theories about the universe: light has reached us from stars that are too far away to transmit the light within the age of the universe. But the Book of Genesis explains this easily: "let there be light" means that God created light, not merely stars.

===Number of stars===
The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Uniqueness of stars===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Sun and Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah_34-42_(Translated)#Chapter_40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Likewise, with respect to the [[sun]], the Book of Proverbs 8:27 ([[ESV]]) states:
{{cquote|When he established the heavens, ... he drew a circle on the face of the deep}}

The Book of Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, and the Book of Proverbs even earlier. This was centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round, and it was not discovered until 2012 that the sun is perfectly spherical. Astronomers were not able to conclude until well into the second millennium of [[Christ]] that the Earth is also a sphere.

===Earth free floating in space===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the [[Earth]] on nothing." It also contrasts with Greek Mythology's belief that [[Atlas]] holds up the Earth, or ancient Hindu and native American myths that the Earth was on top of a gigantic turtle.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

===Cosmic Background Radiation===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

===Meteoroids===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

===Stellar proper movement===
In [[Job]], a list of challenges are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can. Among these challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. Only recently, astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

===Space flight===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens,<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref> in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out."

==Meteorology==

===Jet stream===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the [[jet stream]] long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

===Water cycle===
The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that.
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

==Physics==

===Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory===
Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But [[Genesis_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter_1|Genesis]] explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter.

===Light and color===
Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

===Action-at-a-distance===
[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

===Quantum mechanics===
The fundamental principle of [[quantum mechanics]] is that the underlying reality is in random fluctuation, or chaos, until there is intelligent observation of it. This is precisely what [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)#Luke 4:6|Luke 4:6]] reveals when it quotes the [[devil]], which is derived from an ancient word for chaos, in saying that he has dominion over this world.

====Observation of the wave function====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm. This famous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

====Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle====
Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." -- [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* "The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later." -- [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

====Wave-particle duality====
Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

====Quantum tunneling====
[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

===Classical relativity===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

===Modern relativity===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

===Second Law of Thermodynamics===
The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts a heat death for the universe; thus the universe will eventually be dark and chaotic. Thus, the validity of this statement is questionable.

[[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10-11]] explains that the universe shall "wear out" like a "garment", centuries before the discovery of the physical law that [[entropy]] is always increasing.

===Nature of air===
Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 states, "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

===Conservative forces===
James 1:17 describes the electromagnetic forces (light) as having no "shadow of turning." Not understood for nearly 2000 years, this predicts that electromagnetic forces are [[conservative]] such that their [[line integrals]] over a closed loop are zero.

==Mathematics==

===Zero===
Mathematicians in Western Europe did not discover [[zero]] until many centuries after the [[Bible]] was written. But there are hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout the Bible.

===Banach-Tarski Paradox===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object out of no extra material.

===Axiomatization of Arithmetic===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister.<ref>[http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/MathAndBible.pdf J. C. Keister: "''Math and the Bible''"], Biblical Blueprints Omaha, NE, 1999 (pdf)</ref> 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.

===Infinity===
Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of [[infinity]] for thousands of years, despite it being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#20:1|Matthew 20:1-14]] ([[parable]] of the wages for the workers in the vineyard); Matthew 16:26 (one's soul has an infinite value to him, and nothing else can be worth more).

But [[Georg Cantor]], deeply inspired by [[Christianity]], established a logical foundation for infinity that revolutionized all of mathematics as a result, with his development of [[set theory]] to accomplish his goal.

===Set theory===
[[Georg Cantor]]'s development of [[set theory]] in the late 19th century was initially rejected by many great mathematicians, including [[Henri Poincare]], before it became the basis for nearly all of mathematics today. But the Bible contains many hints in support of set theory, as in the "last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

===Calculus===
The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.<ref>[http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000</ref>

James 1:17 states that the first and second derivatives of God's light (truth) is zero, more than 1600 years before calculus was discovered: "with [God] there is no variation or shadow of turning."<ref name="Shadow%252525252525252520of%252525252525252520Turning">[http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/no-variation-or-shadow-of-turning-calculus-in-the-bible/ Nathan Albright: ''"No Variation Or Shadow Of Turning: Calculus In The Bible"''], Blog-Entry, Feb 24, 2011 </ref>

===Arithmetic with Negative Numbers===

Negative numbers were not fully accepted by mathematicians until the 1800s,<ref>http://nrich.maths.org/5961</ref> including how a negative number dominates the result in multiplication with a positive number, to yield a negative outcome. Yet Jesus's parable of the sower and the seed, in Matthew 13:1-23, Mark 4:1-8, and Luke 8:4-8, explained the same effect nearly 2000 years earlier.

==Sociology==

===Crime===
Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

==Zoology==

===Morality of animals===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself. However, as as limited case, animals do demonstrate altruistic behavior.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species. Other dinosaur like creatures mentioned are the cockatrice and satyr <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Killing methods of lions===
Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

===Giant sea creatures and Jonah===
The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Gender of worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

==Linguistics==

===Common descent theory===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

==Economics==
Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Government and Politics==

===Nation-state===
Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

===Separation of Powers===
The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

===Liberal influence on the media===
The Third [[Three Temptations of Christ|Temptation of Christ]] is to bow down and worship the [[Satan]] in exchange for becoming ruler of the world. The media plays that role and its influence is predictably [[liberal]] and anti-[[Christian]].

==Engineering==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

==Future Scientific Forknowledge==
Much scientific foreknowledge in the Bible has not even been discovered yet by science.

===Relativity===
Science has not yet reached the post-relativity stage. Mainstream science still preaches general relativity, and its implications such as black holes.

==Alleged "contradictions"==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]],<ref>http://creation.com/modern-medicine Creation Ministries International on "Modern" Medicine</ref> [[Answers in Genesis]],<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp Answers in Genesis on "Modern" Medicine</ref> and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref>

[[Atheists]] and [[liberals]] unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

===Value of Pi===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Additionally, Pi to one significant digit is 3. Just because the measurement is given to only one significant digit, that does not mean it was precisely that amount. Of course, since Pi is an irrational number, it would be impossible to give a truly precise measurement. Since decimal notation was not in use in Biblical times, there was no way to express Pi to greater accuracy in the language of the day.

===Bat as a bird===
A favorite [[evolutionist]] canard is that [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:13-19]] labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. The [[KJV]] translation of "fowl" is simply incorrect, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-scientific category simply referring to ''any'' winged creature. A popular Jewish translation, used to explain the laws of keeping kosher, translates the term as "winged flying things."

===Rabbits, coneys, and cud===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:5-6]], the Bible states, {{cquote|And the coney ''(or hyrax)'', because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.}} While rabbits do not, in fact, regurgitate food and re-chew it, they have the same jaw motions as animals that do<ref>http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud</ref> and thus appeared as cud-chewing to the Jews of Moses's time. [[Atheist]]s and [[liberal]]s love to misrepresent this passage only because they are in [[liberal denial]] of the truth.

===Number of legs of insects===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:20-23]], the Bible states, {{cquote|All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind.

But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.}}While this may appear to indicate that insects have four legs (they have six), the passage is in fact referring to the manner in which the grasshopper moves. Grasshoppers have large back legs mainly used for jumping, and not for walking, which is when it uses its smaller four front legs. Thus, the ancient Hebrews were just describing things as they saw them, not according to scientific nomenclature.

==See Also==
*[[Biblical political foreknowledge]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Biblical scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

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

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Liberal denial]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-23T15:28:31Z

BarrySM: acknowledgement of Schlafly's wisdom

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== 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)

:::I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:04, 22 February 2014 (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)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

''Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.''--[[User:Matthewhammond|Matthewhammond]] 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you have a history [[Talk:Idou|of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you]]. If you take out your [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott], you'll find that '''neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder'''. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
==Hubris of Man==
I find [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=1064278&oldid=1064268 this edit] to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that '''all''' things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

:The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'' (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

==Distance of Oldest Star to Earth==
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)

:Articles are cited here for their facts, not for any additional liberal speculation or spin that is included. There is no atheistic reason to claim 6,000 light-years away if it were not true. The confirmation of the [[Bible]] by a scientific culture that tends to be atheistic in outlook is remarkable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 22 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for rephrasing that for me. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 10:28, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-22T23:08:44Z

BarrySM: /* Distance of Oldest Star to Earth */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== 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)

:::I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:04, 22 February 2014 (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)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

''Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.''--[[User:Matthewhammond|Matthewhammond]] 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you have a history [[Talk:Idou|of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you]]. If you take out your [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott], you'll find that '''neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder'''. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
==Hubris of Man==
I find [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=1064278&oldid=1064268 this edit] to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that '''all''' things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

:The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'' (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

==Distance of Oldest Star to Earth==
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)
:Simple. The source can be trusted where it is right, and not where it is wrong. You are just looking for problems where there are none. Search your feelings; you know it to be true. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:08, 22 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-22T23:04:14Z

BarrySM: /* Section or new article on future knowledge */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== 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)

:::I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:04, 22 February 2014 (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)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

''Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.''--[[User:Matthewhammond|Matthewhammond]] 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you have a history [[Talk:Idou|of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you]]. If you take out your [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott], you'll find that '''neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder'''. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
==Hubris of Man==
I find [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=1064278&oldid=1064268 this edit] to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that '''all''' things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

:The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'' (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

==Distance of Oldest Star to Earth==
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Conversion therapy

2014-02-22T21:15:31Z

BarrySM: /* Hatred of Father */

==Proposed Changes==
In the very near future , I'd like to expand the article to include some more detail of techniques (the article in its current form is not very informative). I'd do it now but it requires research to fully flesh it out complete with citations. I planned to include a detailed list of common techniques and a bit more information on the reasons given why much of the medical community is not in favor of these techniques. My question is....am I allowed to make it as detailed as possible (no matter where the data takes me) or must I follow guidelines to ensure that it is presented in the brightest light possible? --DavidS 14:56, 21 December 2013 (EST)

{{unprotected|29 December 2007|Ed Poor}}
I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 1==

This is flawed citation, '''American Psychiatric Association''', [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reparative_therapy&diff=128816&oldid=122468] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, '''will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.

:Also, we need to distinguish between "[[brainwashing]]" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Murray, I disagree.

:Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am [[intolerance|intollerent]] of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something ''other than what it says'', or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, ''before'' using them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.

::The desire to make the source '''seem''' to say what you want it to say ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the [[Deceit]] talk page is the best example yet. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=126167&oldid=126157] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm] it quickly became obvious ''why'' this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I ''personally'' get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Paul_Wolfowitz Full discussion]). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!

::I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.

::There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.

::I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] Let's be fair about this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can ''personally'' attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::On what grounds? After correcting the citations and mayby few small modifications it should be well sourced and supported claim. To remove it there would need to be some reason. Might you specify one? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 2==

*''the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.''<ref>[http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282 Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda]</ref>
Neither citation, the original ''Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda'', or what it is quoting from, [http://www.narth.com/docs/cases.html Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy], use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:
:*"Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
:*"Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] ''the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens.''" (2001, 83)
:I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a ''prima facie'' impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*''most authorities ''
**Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==
*''the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html</ref>
Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear ==

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have no objections to telling both sides of the RT story. Now, let's see, where's that nice book [[Dr. Laura]] endorsed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Rob, great job discussing it on the talk page. You need to raise the objections to the "theory" from the APA; otherwise it's wrong. Say it's the APA; not "some groups." And remember, it's just a theory ;-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well you can begin straightening out any bogus text and citations you wish to add here on talk before the page gets unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Tell me how your version's better. Mine is more balanced, better organized, and cites more than just sources that support one perspective. So, yours is...? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Read the above three Examples and respond specifically, otherwise it's just trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I fixed your comments as requested. How is yours better than my fixed version?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's what I thought. My version was better. Change it back.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Not Any Scientific Reasoning" ==
You realize there's no scientific basis for calling homosexuality a mental disorder, right? And, assuming ''arguendo'' no evidence for NOT calling it a mental disorder, don't you think it's best to err on the side of declassifying, so as not to offend? And do you not further realize, that "disorder" is a relative term, judged by society's values, et al, not an objective term of art?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Gender identity disorder]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

...which is different than homosexuality in many important elements. And I'm not talking about your hatchet job on that article, I'm talking about this hatchet job.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not what the DSM IV says. [http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
They seem to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for a diagnosis of some, but not sufficient for it. You are aware of the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Who would this diagnosis apply to other than latent or active homosexuals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's draw a Venn Diagram! "Gender identity" seems to be, from the perspective of the article, a ''subset'' of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what your source argues. It does ''not'' argue that "gender identity disorder" = homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Let's qualify my source first. My source is the APA DVM IV. This is the diagnositc manual of psychiatric disorders. All subsidiary pschyotherapists bow and genuflect to this source. It is the textbook of medical conditions and diagnosis. If it's not in here, its not a medical or psychiatric condition. If it is here, it is a profressionaly recognized and treatable psychiatric condition. Would you agree with that characterization, or can you cite a more qualified source than the APA on recognized psychiatric conditions and mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
: I never impugned the quality of your source. I said it doesn't support the equation of gender identity disorder with homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have heard only theological speculation (from lay Christians) about gender identity disorder being related to homosexuality. Feeling that you're the wrong sex tends to lead to cross-dressing. Feeling that you need to unite with the <s>opposite</s> sex leads to homosexuality. The two disorders might be similar, but for our purposes they're distinct enough for separate articles. We need to dig into authors like Socarides, Medinger, Cohen, Schlesinger, Dobson, etc., for solid psychological and religious views. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What an embarassing typo (thinko?) I made! I meant ''unite with the same sex'', of course. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, who, other than a latent or active homosexual, could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sigh, right, your source argues "all gender ID sufferers are gay," not "all gays are gender ID sufferers." Do you understand the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::The diagnosis is, all gender ID sufferers are gay who complain about it. Point being, cancer symptoms are not symptoms of gender ID disorder, whereas homosexual desires are a symptom of the mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The source demonstrates that homosexual desires in ''some'' people are the result of a mental illness, not anything else. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not certain I understand this. You mean the gay gene causes mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::No. I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't understand this issue, so I'll put the logic out in a step by step fashion. Apologies if it seems condescending, but I see no other way.
#Gender ID disorder ''is'' a mental illness
#According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
#Gender ID disorder is ''not'' the "gay gene"
#Not all gay people have gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have Gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have a mental illness.
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*''According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay ''
:Where does it say this, and what language would you propose to clarify it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Not all people with GID are gay, either. The DSM only gives stats for men who were diagnosed in childhood. Of those, 75% as adults are either gay or bisexual, 25% are heterosexual. And Rob, "homosexual desires" are not a symptom of GID. It's about wanting to be the other gender. For example, in kids, one symptom is a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" (p537 of DSM). Sexual desire isn't even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the arguement is, "strong persistent cross-gender identification" refers to something other than homosexuality.[http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yep. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. You have several times linked to the site that lists the DSM diagnostic criteria. Perhaps you could point out where it says that it refers to homosexuality? I can't find anything in my copy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Define "strong persistent cross-gender identification" then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::The feeling that one should be or would rather be the opposite gender. Wanting to take on roles that traditionally belong to the other gender. Often to the point of feeling so uncomfortable with one's gender as to try to pass as the opposite gender, or to have surgery to actually become the other gender. Read the entry again - it says virtually nothing about sexuality at all. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, let's confine this discussion to humans. So this means a man wants to have a baby? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::I guess I missed the point at which non-humans came up. Sure, that would be consistent, though not necessary. And? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So we can rule out [[asexual]]s then. But "strong, persistent cross identification" goes beyond wanting to wear high heals. It deals with sex, either a man wants to have a baby, or woman feels she can impregnate someone, or there is a desire to have sex with members of ones own sex. Would that be fair characterization? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it would be. If a man wishes he could get pregnant, it doesn't follow that it's because he wants to have sex with another man. If it was about sex with another man, why would pregnancy come into it? It's more likely a desire for motherhood (see 2nd para under '''Diagnostic Features'''). It is beyond wanting to wear high heels, but that doesn't make it about sex. It's about (assuming we're talking about a man) wanting to live as a woman, with everything that encompasses. High heels, makeup, etc., are symbols of womanhood. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Adds: There may be a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender but that's peripheral to the definition of GID. And it's more about wanting oneself to be the opposite gender, and therefore be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, if you know what i mean. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So homosexuality enters into the equation. And by definition, this diagnosis could not apply to anyone ''other than'' homosexuals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Then how is it that the symptoms usually fade as childhood goes on, and that 25% are heterosexual by late adolescence? The diagnosis still has nothing to do with whether a person wants to have same-sex sex. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry I missed that stat. It does say men outnumber women who seek sex change operation by a 3/1 ratio. This is an interesting stat, given that nature provides roughly a 50/50 ratio of births, men to women. You'd think, since nature screwed up, the ratios would be somewhat more equal. How do we explain this disequilibria? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There are any number of diseases/disorders which effect one sex more than the other. Nothing particularly unusual about that.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's true. Prostate cancer is extremely rare among women. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It should also be pointed out that individuals diagnosed with gender identity disorder typically also present some form of mental stress because of the identity crisis and subsequent conflict. Many who are homosexual but not diagnosed with the geder identity disorder do not exhibit stress due to their sexual orientation per se, but because of the reactions they observe from others. -Prof0705
:I get it, others are making them sick. Their victim status leads to an illness, or is it the other way around, their illness leads to a victim status not enshrined in law yet? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nature screwed up? I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm glad to see you accepting that homosexuality is biologically determined. Regarding the gender distribution of GID, a reasonable hypothesis is that something about prenatal brain development (eg, hormone levels) was different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually no. I didn't express a personal opinion. I am reciting the theory of science behind both gay gene theory and this diagnosis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I shall list the specific DSM-IV criteria here, and express why they do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals:

:1. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.

"Cross-gender" identification includes but is not limited to the persistent desire to be the opposite sex, or to associate with the opposite sex. This includes for Male-to-Females, makeup, heels, and dresses. While it has been claimed above that it doesn't just cover "wanting to wear heels" in fact, it does, if that desire is sufficiently persistent. In order to meet the criteria for GID however, all criteria must be met. This can also refer to strictly gender roles, which are not necessarily connected to sexual or reproductive habits and behaviors. There are a number of social and cultural differences in the behavior of men and women, and anyone who wishes to fill the gender roles of the opposite gender qualify in this parameter.

The best test for this is to ask a man, "Do you want to be a woman?" and to ask a woman "Do you want to be a man?" A response in the affirmative is a positive indicator for this criterion, a response in the negative is a definitive contra-indication of Gender Identity Disorder.

::What if (a) the person is lying, or (b) the person is incapable of making a rational judgement, or (c) due to social or cultural homophobia the person feels pressure to go along in order to get along, or (d) due to internalized homnophobia, he's in denial? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well then, (a) this presumption can be made of any disease, that's why there is counciling to determine the reasons and appropriateness of treatment. (b) GID is not to be treated in the case of a coinciding medical/psychiatric condition, this means not for people who potentially have multiple personality disorder, or some other psychiatric disorder where treatment would only result in worse results for the patient. In the case of a defense mechanism in response to a sexually tramatic experience, GID is contraindicated. For instance, a girl was raped and as the only way she can resolve the issue psychiatrically on her own, she presumes that she needs to have a gender change. GID, and its therapy is also contraindicated in this event. (c/d) gender identity therapy begins with vetting the patient to ensure that they're not simply distraught with being gay, or some other such reason. Gender therapy begins off immediately with the idea that gender reassignment therapy (which consists of counselling, hormones then surgery over the course of at least one year) should be the last option chosen. If there is anyway for a person with GID to live in their assigned gender, then they are recommended to persue that, and not face the discrimination, and unnecessary nature that would be their treatment. There is also significant interest in ensuring that treatment is only given to those for whom it is appropriate.

:::If the treatment would cause more harm than good, then the treatment is contraindicated. In Iran, I mentioned that transsexuality is accepted, as a result gay, and lesbian people are pressured to change gender in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, this is widely regarded as inappropriate in the western world. If gender reassignment therapy is carried out upon someone who is not transsexual, or significantly transgendered, the situation which they are placed in is just as emotionally and psychiatrically damaging as the situation that you are moving transsexuals out of. As a result, hormones and therapy are denied without approval from an appropriate therapist, and surgery in particular requires the sign off from a Ph.D. This intented to raise the bar sufficiently that anyone doing it on a whim will not be able to do any lasting damage to themselves by lying in order to gain treatment. Therapists are well accustomed to behaviors and stories that indicate a person lying about their experiences of GID. In all cases however, if someone were to simply express that they have homosexual desires, the therapy would '''not''' travel towards treatment, but towards treating that person's discomfort with their homosexuality, whether than means resolving them to their heterosexuality, or having them come to acccept and embrace their homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality alone is immediately a disqualifying factor for treatment and diagnosis of GID. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

While gay men and butch lesbians typically express their gender roles quite broadly, and may take up gender roles typically considered outside of their traditional roles, such as men paying more attention to their looks, clothes, and fashion, and women caring significantly less about it, and acting more physical, reardless, if you ask them "Do you want to be a woman" and "Do you want to be a man?" they will answer in the negative. They are happy with their gender, they're simply attracted to the same sex.

:2. This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.

The person can't have these feelings simply because for instance, a woman wants to "break through the glass ceiling", or a man wants to enjoy having their dates paid for, doors opened for them, etc.

There has to be distinct evidence, that even if changing their gender meant total loss of all advantages that they would still be willing to undergo the change. A good example here would be male to female transsexuals in Iran. As men they have significant advantages, and as women they lose enormous amounts of rights, yet they still change. (Yes, Iran condones gender change, they make it mandatory once approved, and the health care system pays for it.)

:3. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

This is the easiest contra-indication that gays have Gender Identity Disorder. They are quite happy with the sex they're assigned, and feel appropriate in the gender that they live in.

This is quite different from someone suffering from severe stress, and depression over their body being the wrong sex, such to the point that they would consider mutilating it in order to acheive a correction of their body.

:4. The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

"Intersex" means that you're born somewhere in between the genders. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the body does not properly matabolize testosterone) only affects genetic males, and can vary significantly from simply low infertility, through infertility, through ambiguous genitalia, all the way until you reach a female external form, with internalized testes, and significant lack of pubic and ancilliary hair (arm pits). Pubic and ancilliary hair grow as a response to testosterone, and thus, when the body is insensitive to it, it will not grow. In the later case, few people have any idea that anything would be wrong with their daughter until she didn't start her period in a timely manner, and they brought her to her doctor to figure out why. It's estimated that 6% of all cases coming to fertility clinics are because the mother has undiagnosed AIS. The reason AIS only affects males is because women do not have sufficient testosterone to affect their external development anyways.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia only affects females, as it refers to an abnormal amount of testosterone affecting a developing fetus, which results in the genetically female body developing externally down the path of virilization.

There are a slew of other intersex conditions, basically, this criteria is to ensure that GID is only indicated in those who have no known biological reason to have cross-gender feelings.

:5. There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

The most common response to "why did you change to a woman?" by male to female transsexuals is that they came to an impass, and it was either change or commit suicide. The stress upon their life creates severe depression, it can lead to socially abberant behavior, antisocial behavior, and numerous other issues.

Basically, the person cannot be able to function in their current life without therapy to resolve their feelings.

Gay people are normally quite successful, they don't have such odd social behaviors, or psychological stress (to the degree of GID patients) that cause them to really require the necessity to transition. If you ask them, "Would you be able to continue to live your life as your current gender?" their response would be positive, while someone with GID will expressly respond in the negative, stating that if they were unable to change, that they would face catastrophic life consequences, such as suicide, total failure of work life, decent into "uncurable" depression, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why gay people do not typically have GID... the biggest indicator is that they are happy with their life. When lay people get ahold of some DSM criteria, they may not understand the actual meanings and intentions of that text, while even a psychiatrist/psychologist who is not familiar with GID itself would be able to assess the GID criteria, and state blatently, that it would not apply to gays and lesbians. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 15:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so you've made the case why "the vast majority of homosexuals" do not suffer from GID (in the United States). Yet in the [[Gender identity disorder]] article you've stated, "in Iran Gender Identity Disorder is recognized and sex reassignment therapy, and '''surgery is compulsory''', and '''paid for by the state'''." Neither claim is supported by the underlying document you provided. [http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11423] ''In fact,'' the underlying document '''contradicts''' what you have claimed:
:*state health organisation '''may''' also subsidise...
:*...one such theologian ...is even writing a thesis..."Teachers, colleagues and officials from the '''judiciary have been very encouraging towards my thesis'''... We have to differentiate between sex changes and homosexuality."... Kariminia acknowledges that he is under pressure...

:This is a far cry from "surgery is compulsory," as you have claimed. This needs some explanation, or proper sourcing, or you may be blocked from further editing for violating several of CP's core Commandments and Guidelines. Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Widely available sources, and information. Why don't conservatives papers tend to cover this topic? Because they generally take the opinion that transsexuality is homosexuality, and thus a Sin. Another source is http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/15513 I have however altered the "will pay for" section. Although saying that a socialist healthcare system "will pay for a heart transplant" ignores that medical reasons may play a reason why a heart transplant would not be allowed, and thus not covered by the state. Certainly at least saying "The state will pay for approved sex reassignment therapy and surgery" is also a definitively true statement.

::To follow up on your questions regarding compulsory, for legal recognition of your gender, you require surgery, without legal recognition you are legally a male engaging in sexual acts with another male. Legally, that is homosexuality, and homosexuality is punished by death. Therefore, opting to not have surgery, will keep you legally your original gender, and thus a homosexual. Simple and clear extension of legal fact. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good. I think you've come close to putting your finger on the point. This subheading, for example, is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning," you proceeded to make a lengthy and rather thoughtful exposition about how GID is not necessarily the same as homosexuality, and how DVM doesn't consider it homosexuality a disease ''or'' disorder. Fine. We know all that. This appeared to be really very scientifically based and keeping with the topic under this subhead questioning "scientific reasoning." Ok, fine. Then your next edit to mainspace appears highly ideological, and politically motivated, what I would refer to as [[activism]]. That has little to do with the ongoing discussion of the science. Then, in what would appear suspiciously motivated circumstances, you make various claims to a mainspace article regarding social policy and Islamic law unsupported by an illusory source. All this does not look good, and I hope you can understand our concerns.

:::Bottomline is, we are not a propaganda mouthpiece for disinformation. Subtley in any context will be meticulously reviewed. Mixing a poltical agenda with science, which either misquotes or misinterprets the underlying science, or conversely uses junk science to push activism, I personally am rather disposed to prevent. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== The purpose of Exodus International and Reparative Therapy in their eyes ==

::::The mainspace edit was not politically motivated, but rather truthfully motivated. Not all reparative therapy sucesses end with "I'm a heterosexual now." Rather, the goal of reparative therapy is to correct homosexual behavior, and have the people overcome that. That still leaves the option of the person going to asexuality, and celebacy as an alternative to heterosexuality, and bisexuality.

::::Being that the article specifically is addressing Exodus International, let's use their words exactly:: "What is Exodus? Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/

::::The purpose and intend of Exodus International is to "help practicing homosexuals to overcome their homosexual desires." Not the further goal of ensuring that everyone who successfully goes through it is heterosexual at the end. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well again, you appear to be on some sort of mission, or other. This mainspace page is entitled "Reparative Therapy." You have placed a description of an organization about its primary mission, and not what the organization says about Reparative therapy. What Exodus International ''in fact'' says about Reparative Therapy, (and not itself which is what you are using to define Reparative Therapy), is,

:::::''reparative therapy — a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction — can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind.''...
:::::Frankly, at this point, it now appears you've gone from using a biased journalist with ''Agencie France Presse'' as a source for statements that the jounralist himself never reported on, to alleging a "Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning." [http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/]
:::::I would suggest you get off this track you're attempting to pursue. Contrary to many stereotypes, many Christians are not fools and idiots. Many of us are very familiar dealing with the types of distortions and disinformation you are attempting to place here, and have had decades of experience dealing with it. It is just not going to work. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, it went off topic, I've now split the two discussions, so that it no longer appears that Exodus International is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning". In fact, I make no such claim at all. Reparative therapy can be a good thing in many cases.

My desire in my mainspace edit was simply to note that Exodus International and Reparative Therapy, even as you present their statement, do not make people heterosexual, they make them non-homosexual. This allows for celibacy and asexuality, of which the later's existince you have acknowledged. I am not trying to "push an agenda" here, and I understand that you would see my actions as some sort of mission. Which I sort of am, my mission is for the truth.

I *am* a Christian, and I know we're not fools. But certainly you wouldn't call an apple purple when it's red... If the goal of reparative therapy is to help an individual overcome their homosexuality, that is not the same as making them heterosexual. It also includes making them asexual. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. ==

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy? ==

What other groups besides the APA reject Reparative therapy? [[User:Danbarker|Danbarker]] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Off the top of my head, the other APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) and the American Medical Association. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:And after a quick search, the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think we've covered this ground. These groups all follow the lead taken by the American Psychiatric Assoc. None of them go contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for answering the question. The American Psychological Association came first, actually, 1990 vs 1998. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's not the issue. The issue is over what the diagnosis of the illness is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Umm, ''What'' "illness"? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, we've been having discussion on several pages over varius diagnosis. [[Gender identity disorder]] is one, [[Homophobia]] is another. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)Oh, okay, for this article I'd guess you'd being thinking of something along the lines of ''Sexual orientation dysphoria''. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct. The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Not sure what you mean. Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It's an issue of sourcing. There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc. These controversies need to be articulated. What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy. That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources. Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That's ridiculous. On what basis? Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question is over a medical diagnosis. American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc. No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions. They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda. This is well known and has been occurring for decades. And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed. There are other factors as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it. And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction? You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned. Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis. It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets. It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow. The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them. Who knows. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because it's a medical diagnosis. Name one other instance where pschyologists recognize as a mental illness that the field of psychiatry does not. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers weren't enough.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because even if the entire Catholic Church said the Earth is stationary, it would not make Galileo's defense of the Copernican system of "planets revolving around the Sun" any less true. Citing scientific bodies is a political strategy, same as the [[anthropogenic global warming]] advocates citing the "scientific consensus" of the UN assessment (see [[IPCC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor's recent edits. ==

Recently Ed Poor made the edit of removing: "'''Reparative Therapy''' is the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice." That's a very clearly POV edit, as the sentence following and describing Reparative Therapy is accurate, and factual. That is unless, and only unless it can be shown that there exists a Reparative Therapy method that does not rely upon religious tenants.

There is now a very strong bias on this page against Reparative Therapy. Not only does the last section criticize Reparative Therapy, but the first quote in the first section biasedly criticizes Reparative Therapy.

The edits to the first section are simply unacceptable from an accurate and factual point of view. If the first quote should be kept, then it should be placed in the section "Misinformation about reparative therapy" which first of all is entirely biased simply by the language.

Would someone PLEASE revert these edits, they're entirely unacceptable.(except the changing to the reflist template.) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It occurs to me that perhaps Ed Poor's edits were at the behest of someone else. In either case, the edits are inappropriate. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:It's better to refer to the content of the editor, rather than the name of the editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Arguments of opponents==
Cut from article:

*Opponents of reparative therapy characterize it as the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection and claim that it is based on the idea that [[Homosexuality and choice|homosexuality is a choice]].

*[[Richard Cohen]] says in rebuttal, "No one chooses to have same-sex desires."

We need to distinguish between PR campaigns which put words in people's mouths or otherwise distort their positions - and arguments which correctly state a position and then rebut it. The two sentences above confuse the issue (a typical [[gay agenda]] tactic).

There are two main anti-homosexuality views, the religious and the psychological:
*Religious people stress the effectiveness of prayer, even to the exclusion of therapy. They also emphasize the role of choice (see [[free will]]) in regard to sexual acts.
*Psychologists tend to ignore prayer entirely, or to give it merely a supporting role in therapy.

Both schools of thought recommend reflection. A homosexual needs to consider what he gets from maintaining his condition: for example, is homosexuality making him happy or unhappy in the present? What are the longterm consequences? Would a course of prayer and/or therapy be helpful? (No one says, "Just do it.") --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Excellent summary of opponent's approach==

----
Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mystery%3AWhere_is_Hell%3F&diff=628725&oldid=628667 here], but the substance follows. {{cquote|Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the [http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide] in the victims of this treatment ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch see?]). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking. You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/07/the-horrific-evils-of-reparative-therapy-and-its-unsurprising-adherents/ read the facts] on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)}}
An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)
----

I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the [[gay rights movement]]. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that [[homosexuality]] is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "[[gay gene]]" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.

But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)

What makes you think that the '''only''' [[scientific study|scientific studies]] had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out [[NARTH]]. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives [[Unification Church|my own church]] a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of [[sin]].

Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "[[negligent homicide]]". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.

I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote [[authorities]] who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
:Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
:You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study grave errors pointed out] by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
:I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever ''met'' anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Will science examine the issue?==

The primary argument '''against''' reparative therapy seems to be that no unbiased organization supports it. This is not a scientific argument, but a political one.

Science proves something is harmful (or useless) by running actual experiments, not by taking opinion polls or citing authorities.

Lucius's example of (supposedly) meeting '''one''' person is flawed:
#One case is never sufficient. Several hundred is considered a minimum study size.
#The "treatment" is merely a parody of RT - a program filled with coercion, which is not which RT is.

We need a better description of RT. We need to describe the public relations campaign against it, which as my encounter with LuciusF shows, is mainly a smear campaign.

Most of all, we need to summarize the scientific studies of RT, even if only its supporters have studied it.

The refusal of opponents to take a look at something is '''by no means''' evidence that it's flawed, but more likely an indication of the opponents' anti-scientific [[bias]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:39, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Hatred of Father ==

This idea of homosexuality being about a man's hatred of his father sounds a bit Freudian to me. Perhaps it should be made clear that the idea is not actually taken seriously here in case we come across as Freud-lovers. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 16:51, 21 February 2014 (EST)

:The [[Prodigal Son]] predates [[Sigmund Freud]] by about 1900 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 21 February 2014 (EST)

::It still sounds Freudian to me. I see nothing about homosexuality, or even hatred for that matter, in the Prodigal Son. Furthermore the interpretation in the linked article points out that it wasn't literally his father that the story was about, unless the son in the story was actually Jesus. Surely Jesus wasn't actually saying, "I used to be - I mean my friend used to be a screw-up when I - I mean he - left his dad's house ... long story short this unnamed friend of mine is an ex-gay."

Talk:Conversion therapy

2014-02-21T21:51:44Z

BarrySM: /* Hatred of Father */ new section

Conversion therapy

2014-02-21T21:34:46Z

BarrySM:

'''Conversion therapy''', also known as "'''reparative therapy'''," is treatment that converts someone's sexual attraction from homosexuality to heterosexuality. This therapy has been successful in many cases,<ref>Linda Nicolosi wrote, "... their efforts have a demonstrable track record of treatment success." [http://www.narth.com/docs/lcreview.html]</ref> and has been praised by leading experts such as Anna Freud, daughter of [[Sigmund Freud]]. Ms. Freud observed that:<ref>Young-Elisabeth Bruehl, "Anna Freud" (New York: Summit Books, 1988), ISBN 0-671-68751-4.</ref>
{{cquote|nowadays we can cure many more homosexuals than was thought possible in the beginning}}
A therapist reports that, after conversion, a previously homosexual man tends to be physically attracted to only his girlfriend or wife. A heterosexual male is typically attracted to women in addition to his wife, while a converted former homosexual is typically physically attracted to only his girlfriend or wife.

Homosexuality is highly correlated to someone's activities and culture. For example, training in baseball and figure skating begin when a boy is only about six years ago. After years of engaging in those activities, often for hours each day, upon reaching adulthood fewer than 1 in 1000 baseball players are homosexual, while estimates are that 33% of male figure skaters are -- a 300-fold difference after doing different activities.

In some cases, the therapy addresses hatred a male patient had for his father while growing up. By repairing that relationship (see also the [[Prodigal Son]]), the therapist can be successful in enabling the patient to become heterosexual. Paul endorses the equivalent of [[Christian]]-based conversion therapy in [[1 Corinthians 1-8 (Translated)#6:11|1 Corinthians 6:11]].

Predictably, advocates of the [[homosexual agenda]] oppose and even seek to prohibit conversion therapy, analogous to how some countries prohibit conversion to [[Christianity]]. But conversion therapy remains fully legal and effective in nearly all of the United States, with the exception of recent laws concerning minors which passed in [[liberal]] California and New Jersey.

==Refusal to study conversion therapy scientifically==
Political adherence to the [[homosexual agenda]] results in refusal even to consider the possibility that conversion therapy is effective. Politics may explain the American Psychological Association's refusal to cooperate in a proposal to study the effectiveness of conversion therapy:
{{cquote|"NARTH offered to join with the American Psychological Association (APA) in conducting a detailed study of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. The APA refused to cooperate."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance]</ref>}}

==Christian truths==

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “reparative therapy” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Ex-homosexuals#Reparative_Therapy some evidence supporting it]. In addition, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

The opposition to conversion therapy is sometimes ideologically based, and it directs attention away from the harm that [[gay affirmative therapy]] can cause.
The ''American Journal of Psychotherapy'' published a case study about a client who was supposedly harmed by treating him for "[[internalized homophobia]]".<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/lcreview.html]</ref>

== External links ==

*[http://narth.com NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality]
*[http://jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=2 JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing.]
*Arthur Goldberg, "Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change (2009) (available on Amazon)

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Prayer

2014-02-21T21:29:10Z

BarrySM: /* How not to Pray */ - small example

[[Image:Prayer.jpg|right|300px|Praying Hands]]
In [[Christianity]] and many other religions, '''prayer''' is the process of directly connecting to [[God]], usually for the purpose of deliberate communication.

Through prayer our thoughts and hopes are heard and understood. Oftentimes, prayer will result in feeling God's presence or feeling like one is touched by God. This feeling of a connection is cited by many theists as proof of God's existence. It is through prayer that man can understand God's will in his life and ask God for the courage and strength to carry his message to the world. Prayer is common throughout the [[Bible]] in both the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament]].

== A guideline of how one should Pray ==

In Christianity, Jesus gives a guideline of how one should pray to God with The Lord's Prayer:<blockquote>"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name, thy kingdom come, they will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, [[Amen]]."<ref>Matt 6:9-13 </ref><ref>[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/lordsprayer.asp Instructions for praying] </ref></blockquote>

God is the only heavenly object of prayer in the Bible

One way that is a great way to pray when you are praying privately (i.e. talking to God as though he is a close friend)is to just thank Him, thank Him for creating you, the world you live on, the stars, the sun, the galaxy, and everything else. We rarely thank him, but more so we usually ask for help, but it is good to thank him whenever you can.

==Private and Public Prayer==

There are many instances in the Bible of praying in private and also of praying within a group, and sometimes even of praying in public.

<blockquote>"But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed."<ref>{{Bible ref|Luke|5|16}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Image:Jesus praying.jpg|thumb|Jesus praying at Gethsemane]]

Jesus also instructed:<blockquote>"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."<ref>Matt 6:6</ref></blockquote>

Even though he was with his [[Twelve Disciples|disciples]], Jesus also went off alone to pray on the [[Mount of Olives]] when he was about to be seized and [[crucified]].<ref>Luke 22:39-41</ref>

There are also many examples in the Bible of group prayer or praying in front of others:
* [[Solomon]] prayed publicly in dedicating the [[temple]] ({{Bible ref|1_Kings|8|22-61}}).
* [[Daniel (prophet)|Daniel]] prayed alone in his room, but by an open window where he could be seen ({{Bible ref|Daniel|6|10-11}}).
* Jesus sometimes prayed with his disciples ({{Bible ref|Luke|9|18}}).
* The Church prayed for Peter's miraculous release from prison ({{Bible ref|Acts|12|5}}).
* Jesus prayed in public, such as in {{Bible ref|Matthew|19|13-15}} when Jesus prayed for the children brought to him.

Other religions, and even different traditions within Christianity have developed their own practices related to prayer.<ref>"The Modes of Prayer," from the Nazerine Way of Essenic Study [http://www.thenazareneway.com/modes_of_prayer.htm]</ref>

Modern societies often oppose and discourage public prayer. For example, in the United States, government [[school]]s forbid [[classroom prayer]].

Nearly six-in-ten adults in the U.S. say they pray at least once a day.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/ The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life] U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 2008</ref>

== St. Francis Vocation Prayer ==

Most High, Glorious God,

enlighten the darkness of our minds.

Give us a right faith, a firm hope and a perfect charity,

so that we may always and in all things

act according to Your Holy Will. Amen.

==Different types of prayer in the Bible==

The Bible is much a book or prayer, containing about 650 different prayers,<ref>http://www.bible.ca/ntx-prayer.htm</ref> and consisting of various types. Some types that are categorized are,

*1. Prayer of supplication. (1 Kg. 8: 37-40; 54-55; Lk. 11: 9-13; Ja. 5: 17-18)
*2. Prayer of intercession. (Gn 18: 22-33; 1 Kg. 18: 41-46; 2 Kings 4: 32-36 Acts 12: 1-18)
*3. Prayer of faith. (Mk. 11:12-14; 11: 20-25, Luke 7: 1-10; Ja. 5: 13-18, Mt. 9: 18-26)
*4. Prayer of agreement. (Gn. 11: 1-9; Ex. 17: 8-13; Psalm 133: 1-3; Mt. 18: 19-20; Acts 4:23; Heb. 10: 24-25)
*5. Prayer of praise and thanksgiving. (Ps. 100; 149:4-9; Acts 16:16-34; 1Thes. 5:15-19) <ref>http://www.wordlibrary.co.uk/article.php?id=11</ref>

==Quotes on prayer==

*Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5:16 ([[Bible]])

*In what name they were to present their petitions: Ask in my name. To ask in Christ's name is, (1.) To plead his merit and intercession, and to depend upon that plea. (2.) It is to aim at his glory and to seek this as our highest end in all our prayers. - Matthew Henry

*We look upon prayer as a means of getting things for ourselves; The Bible idea of prayer is that we may get to know God Himself. - Oswald Chambers

*Prayer crowns God with the honor and glory due to His name, and God crowns prayer with assurance and comfort. The most praying souls are the most assured souls. - Thomas B. Brooks

*The great thing in prayer is to feel that we are putting our supplications into the bosom of omnipotent love. - Andrew Murray

*We have to pray with our eyes on God, not on the difficulties. - Oswald Chambers

*Teach us to pray that we may cause The enemy to flee, That we his evil power may bind, His prisoners to free. - Watchman Nee

*Prayer is the great engine to overthrow and rout my spiritual enemies, the great means to procure the graces of which I stand in hourly need. - John Newton

*Pray, always pray; when sickness wastes thy frame, Prayer brings the healing power of Jesus' name. - A. B. Simpson

*Prayer is the force as real as terrestrial gravity. As a physician, I have seen men, after all other therapy had failed, lifted out of disease and melancholy by the serene effort of prayer. Only in prayer do we achieve that complete and harmonious assembly of body, mind and spirit which gives the frail human reed its unshakable strength. - Dr. Alexis Carrel

*Every time we pray our horizon is altered, our attitude to things is altered, not sometimes but every time, and the amazing thing is that we don't pray more. - Oswald Chambers

*One night alone in prayer might make us new men, changed from poverty of soul to spiritual wealth, from trembling to triumphing. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

*The less I pray, the harder it gets; the more I pray, the better it goes. - Martin Luther

*He who has learned to pray has learned the greatest secret of a holy and a happy life. - William Law

*If you can't pray as you want to, pray as you can. God knows what you mean. - Vance Havner

*It is not so true that "prayer changes things" as that prayer changes me and I change things. God has so constituted things that prayer on the basis of Redemption alters the way in which a man looks at things. Prayer is not a question of altering things externally, but of working wonders in a man's disposition. - Oswald Chambers

*We read of preaching the Word out of season, but we do not read of praying out of season, for that is never out of season. - Matthew Henry

*To God your every Want In instant Prayer display, Pray always; Pray, and never faint; Pray, without ceasing, Pray. - Charles Wesley

*Pray, always pray; beneath sins heaviest load, Prayer claims the blood from Jesus' side that flowed. Pray, always pray; though weary, faint, and lone, Prayer nestles by the Father's sheltering throne. - A. B. Simpson

*Sometimes we think we are too busy to pray. That is a great mistake, for praying is a saving of time. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

*Tomorrow I plan to work, work, from early until late. In fact I have so much to do that I shall spend the first three hours in prayer. - Martin Luther

*In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart. - John Bunyan

*Refusal to pray is passive rebellion against God, "in whose hand thy breathe is." - Anonymous

*All the prayers in the Scripture you will find to be reasoning with God, not a multitude of words heaped together. - Stephen Charnock

*Prayer is not eloquence, but earnestness; not the definition of helplessness, but the feeling of it; not figures of speech, but earnestness of soul. - Hannah More

*The best prayers have often more groans than words. - John Bunyan

*Unless I had the spirit of prayer, I could do nothing. - Charles G. Finney

*A man's state before God may always be measured by his prayers.- J. C. Ryle

*Oh, what a cause of thankfulness it is that we have a gracious God to go to on all occasions! Use and enjoy this privilege and you can never be miserable. Oh, what an unspeakable privilege is prayer! - Lady Maxwell

Perhaps the most noted author on prayer is the late Methodist minister [[E. M. Bounds]] (1835 - 1913):

*Prayer honors God, acknowledges His being, exalts His power, adores His providence, secures His aid.

*By prayer, the ability is secured to feel the law of love, to speak according to the law of love, and to do everything in harmony with the law of love.

*Praying which does not result in pure conduct is a delusion. We have missed the whole office and virtue of praying if it does not rectify conduct. It is in the very nature of things that we must quit praying, or quit bad conduct.

*Natural ability and educational advantages do not figure as factors in this matter of prayer; but a capacity for faith, the power of a thorough consecration, the ability of self-littleness, an absolute losing of one's self in God's glory and an ever present and insatiable yearning and seeking after all the fullness of God.

*The goal of prayer is the ear of God, a goal that can only be reached by patient and continued and continuous waiting upon Him, pouring out our heart to Him and permitting Him to speak to us. Only by so doing can we expect to know Him, and as we come to know Him better we shall spend more time in His presence and find that presence a constant and ever-increasing delight.

*Importunity is a condition of prayer. We are to press the matter, not with vain repetitions, but with urgent repetitions. We repeat, not to count the times, but to gain the prayer. We cannot quit praying because heart and soul are in it. We pray "with all perseverance." We hang to our prayers because by them we live. We press our pleas because we must have them, or die. <ref>[http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/topics/prayer_quotes.html Famous Quotes and Authors.com Prayer Quotes and Quotations]</ref>

==Effectual prayer==

All faithful Christians attest to answered prayer, as well as countless people who have prayed in times of crisis. An [[evangelical Christian]], [[George Mueller]] (1805-1898), probably best known as the "Father of Orphans", prayerfully met the needs of thousands of children. Mueller and his wife decided to depend on God alone to supply their needs - never again to approach people about them - and 68 years later Mueller had prayed in over seven and a half million dollars, and logged in his journal 50,000 specific answers to prayer - 5,000 were answered on the very day of their asking. <ref>http://www.eaec.org/faithhallfame/georgemuller.htm</ref>

==Prayer in government==
Prayer is a mandated part of governmental affairs within a [[theocracy]] such as [[Islam]], while voluntary prayer may play a part within governments which recognize [[separation of church and state]]. In contrast, refusal to acknowledge God is seen as practically conveying atheism, with prayer being excluded as part of [[atheistic]] systems such as [[Communism]].

In America, upon landing the pilgrims "Being thus arrived in a good harbor, and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees, and blessed the God of heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof…" <ref>William Bradford
November 9, 1620; http://www.dailyencouragement.net/seasonal/pilgrim_history.html</ref>

Three days before George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States, Congress passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel, to hear divine service. (Annals of Congress, Vol. 1, p. 25, April 27, 1789)

Samuel Provoost (1742–1815), the newly appointed chaplain of the United States Senate and first Episcopal bishop of New York, performed “divine service” at St. Paul’s Chapel on April 30, 1789, immediately following Washington’s inauguration.

In the aftermath of the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the Rev. John G. Butler, pastor of Luther Place Memorial Church in Washington, D.C., and chaplain of both the U. S. House of Representatives (1865–1875) and the Senate (1886–1893), organized interfaith inaugural prayer meetings in the nation’s capital commencing in 1869. These services continued well into the twentieth century.<ref>http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/presidentialInaugurals.shtml</ref>

In America, prayer and worship services have regularly been part of Inauguration Day activities. <ref>http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/daysevents/morningworshipservice.cfm</ref>

===Prayers by American Presidents===

In September 1789, Congress asked President George Washington to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.”

Washington complied, and in early October sent a proclamation to the governors of the states.The proclamation asked the governors to make Thursday, November 26 a day of Thanksgiving, saying:

<blockquote>

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

<ref>The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789 </ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40032</ref> <ref>[http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/original.html Thanksgiving Proclamation - The Original]</ref>
</blockquote>

*George Washington, an undated prayer for guidance from Washington's prayer journal, Mount Vernon:

<blockquote>
O eternal and everlasting God, I presume to present myself this morning before thy Divine majesty, beseeching thee to accept of my humble and hearty thanks, that it hath pleased thy great goodness to keep and preserve me the night past from all the dangers poor mortals are subject to, and has given me sweet and pleasant sleep, whereby I find my body refreshed and comforted for performing the duties of this day, in which I beseech thee to defend me from all perils of body and soul....

Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the gospel; give me repentance from dead works; pardon my wanderings, and direct my thoughts unto thyself, the God of my salvation; teach me how to live in thy fear, labor in thy service, and ever to run in the ways of thy commandments; make me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber, but daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life bless my family, friends, and kindred.
</blockquote>

*Thomas Jefferson; a prayer for the Nation (Washington D.C., March 4, 1801):

<blockquote>
Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people, the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
</blockquote>

*Abraham Lincoln; a prayer for peace (Second Inaugural address, March 4, 1865):

<blockquote>
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if God wills that it continues... until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid another drawn with the sword... so still it must be said that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and for his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.</blockquote>.

*Franklin D. Roosevelt; a prayer in dark times (D-Day, June 6, 1944):

<blockquote>
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity...

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph...

Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice... Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
</blockquote>

*John F. Kennedy; a prayer of gratitude (Thanksgiving Day, 1963):

<blockquote>
Let us therefore proclaim our gratitude to Providence for manifold blessings--let us be humbly thankful for inherited ideals--and let us resolve to share those blessings and those ideals with our fellow human beings throughout the world.

On that day let us gather in sanctuaries dedicated to worship and in homes blessed by family affection to express our gratitude for the glorious gifts of God; and let us earnestly and humbly pray that He will continue to guide and sustain us in the great unfinished tasks of achieving peace, justice, and understanding among all men and nations and of ending misery and suffering wherever they exist.
</blockquote>

Jimmy Carter; a prayer for a meaningful life (inaugural address, January 20, 1977, and Thanksgiving speech to the nation, November 27, 1980):

<blockquote>
I would like to have my frequent prayer answered that God let my life be meaningful in the enhancement of His kingdom and that my life might be meaningful in the enhancement of the lives of my fellow human beings.

I call upon all the people of our Nation to give thanks on that day for the blessings Almighty God has bestowed upon us, and to join the fervent prayer of George Washington who as President asked God to "impart all the blessings we possess, or ask for ourselves to the whole family of mankind.
</blockquote>

Ronald Reagan; a prayer for healing (from a speech to the American people, February 6, 1986):

<blockquote>
To preserve our blessed land we must look to God... It is time to realize that we need God more than He needs us... We also have His promise that we could take to heart with regard to our country, that "If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step, in humble heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always.

The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America... Our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal. Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth.

If I had a prayer for you today, among those that have all been uttered, it is that one we're so familiar with: "The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace...." And God bless you all.
</blockquote>

George H. W. Bush; a prayer to help others (Inaugural address, January 20, 1989):

<blockquote>
My first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads.

Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: "Use power to help people."

For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord.

The Lord our God be with us, as He was with our fathers; may He not leave us or forsake us; so that He may incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways... that all peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other. <ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Faith-Tools/Meditation/2005/01/Prayers-Of-The-Presidents.aspx?p=2</ref>
</blockquote>

==Prayer in other religions==

In [[Hinduism]], Prayer is an integral part of the daily living. Chanting of [[mantras]] is the most important form of prayer in Hinduism. Some devotees meditate chanting different names of the Gods. Prayer is also a vital part of [[Islam]]. As part of their faith, they are required to say five prayers at certain times of the day facing Mecca. Each prayer must be recited in [[Arabic]].<ref>http://muslimvoices.org/muslim-prayer/</ref>

== How not to Pray ==

See the above section.

In the [[Sermon on the Mount]], [[Jesus]] warned against hypocrisy in prayer:<blockquote>"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."<ref>Matt 6:5</ref></blockquote>

At the time, the religious authorities believed it was necessary to pray at specific times of the day, and would often make sure they were in large crowds of people when those times arose so that they could be seen and heard by all. Jesus did not approve of this.

Jesus also warned against a high word-to-substance ratio in prayer:<blockquote>"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."<ref>Matt 6:7-8</ref></blockquote>

Pagan prayers at the time believed that there was power in continuous repetition of words, that if you said a word often enough, then you could eventually own that object or claim that power for yourself. Jesus condemned this.

== See also ==
*[[Classroom prayer]]
*[[Hail Mary]]
*[[Rosary]]
*[[Sinner's prayer]]
*[[The Lord's Prayer]]
*[[Nicene Creed]]
*[[Transmigration of Words in Religion: an essay]]

== External links ==

* [http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7055 Prayer, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=T22qP23L0wwC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Notable+Prayers+in+the+Bible&source=bl&ots=BzZZpk-8P2&sig=m5Rju2WEIf8glC-qe_Gc8gC6lFw&hl=en&ei=HT76Scy3IpO-Mui_lLwE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA8,M1 All the Prayers of the Bible, with commentary. Online book by Herbert Lockyer]
*[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BIBLE-PRAYERS.html Compilation of most of the prayers in the Bible]
*[http://christianity.about.com/od/prayersinthebible/qt/bibleprayersind.htm Collection of Notable Prayers Found in the Bible]
*[http://www.catholic.org/prayers/ Prayers] Catholic Online.
* Mates, Nathan, [http://www.visi.com/~nathan/xtian/publicprayer.html Praying in Public] 9th April 2000.
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/rosary.htm#mary Prayers]
*[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html The Biology of Belief]
[http://www.prayface.com Online Prayer]
*[http://www.mrmatthewhenry.com Read Matthew Henry's classic prayerbook 'A Method for Prayer' for free]

== References==
<references/>

[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category: Christianity]]

Talk:Classroom prayer

2014-02-21T21:24:22Z

BarrySM: /* Wondering about something */

== Liberal bias? ==

Since when is ''describing'' the topic "liberal bias". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Oh... Phillip. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.
:I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Classroom_prayer&oldid=464012 collaborative, previous version] was liberally biased, specifically?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how ''classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:: There's two problems with this.
::* First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one ''or more'' of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
::** A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
::** A student praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
::** A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.
:: * Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by [[liberals]].

::: If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain ''what'' something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one ''really'' illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.
::::: Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Saying something is "controversial" is a [[liberal]] way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.

:::: The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize ''your'' side? You might want to reword that.

:::::Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no [[liberals]] have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp

:::::::::::: You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the [[theory of evolution]] is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: No, Danny, you're in denial. I answered your questions, now you answer mine: Does liberal Wikipedia call the theory of evolution "controversial" in its introductory paragraphs? I haven't even bothered to look, and I await your answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Does the use of the word in Wikipedia for a specific article have anything to do with whether it has a legitimate purpose here? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: You continue to dodge and weave, but you won't answer the question I asked you - is there "controversy" between the YEC and OEC camps? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 15:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(Attempt at unindenting again) Actually Andy, I've asked three questions and made a variety of statements. You've yet to answer a single one my of my questions. I suggest doing so before you demand I respond to your question. However, I will respond nonetheless: What do Wikipedia's word choices have to do with it? You've said time and time again that this is not Wikipedia and that WP policies do not apply here. Had you not, I could have pulled out WP:POINT on your reversion of my legitimate statements.

In conclusion, Andy, it would be best if you exit this tangent and return to the original issue: How in the seven layers of the Stygian wastes is Classroom Prayer not controversial if there are two sides battling valiantly for their view to rule? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 15:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:If saying an article is controversial is a liberal trick than how come at the top of the talk page of the Barack Obama article there is a note stating "Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism" [[User:ClydeMorris|ClydeMorris]]

== Reversion Explained ==

I don't think Britain mandates ''classroom'' prayer. I have an open mind about this but would be very surprised if there is any evidence to support the insertion. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:55, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'classroom' prayer, but all schools in England & Wales have a legal obligation to provide "a daily act of collective worship" that is ""wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" [http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/parents/worship-your-rights] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3646389.stm] [http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/c/collectiveworship/]

:"Classroom prayer" means, obviously, "prayer in the classroom." No, Britain does not have that or require it. The links you provide, even if adhered to, would be a general prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing. It doesn't mean classroom prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

::Well then, given your definition of Classroom prayer, then classroom prayer is mandatory in England & Wales, as the law requires that the service take place within the school which, given the numbers involved (the average secondary school in England & Wales has between 1000 and 2000 pupils), almost always means that the service takes place in the theatre (a classroom for Drama). The service consists of:

*a lesson drawn from the bible
*the singing of one or more hymns
*communal prayer

with such services lasting 20 mins or so. The service will be given by either the head of the school or the head of the respective years attending the service, depending on how many simultaneous services the school holds. I know this because like nearly every other person in England and Wales, when I attended school I had to attend these services twice a week, as required by law. The one thing these services aren't are 'prayer-around-the-flagpole' sorts of things, as there aren't that many schools in England & Wales that have accessible flagpoles, and nobody would want to stand around one for 20mins in inclement weather whilst the service is being carried out.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 10:14, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:Dan, you're far too literal. By "prayer-around-the-flagpole sort of thing" I obviously mean prayer that is separate and removed from classroom instruction. Your further posting confirms that fact. There is no praying at the beginning of a class, as [[Isaac Newton]] would do to inspire his scientific discoveries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:25, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::No, you're right that there isn't prayer at the beginning of every lesson, it would be massively disruptive to the lessons and schooling if there were prayers 8-10 times a day (consider, before prayers could start those not involved because they had a different faith would have to be removed from the classroom, the prayer would have to be held, then those outside the classroom would have to take their places again. As a standard lesson in secondary school is 30 mins long you would lose at least 5 mins of that lesson time on each and every lesson). Instead there is prayer, sermon and hymns at the beginning of every schoolday, a far more sensible solution.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 12:20, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Wondering about something==
The article says ''"Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom."'' I wonder if this is a regional thing? I have had kids in Catholic school, and they prayed often. They prayed at the start of school, and at the start of each class (so 7-8 times a day), and they often held mass on holy days. Every assembly and meeting open with prayer. The students pray before lunch. This is true for many of the schools in my area, including a Protestant school I'm familiar with. Even the local religious preschools pray at mealtime. Are there areas where this is not the case? Do we have enough information to generalize one way or the other? I'd love to hear from others what the situation is in their area. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:00, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

:[[Classroom prayer]] is very rare in formal school, even in Christian or Catholic schools (both of which, by the way, are diminishing in market share). Often people opposed to it confuse a prayer outside of the classroom, as at an outdoor or assembly event, with classroom prayer. Classroom prayer is significant because it recognizes the connection between knowledge and faith, and liberals fight tooth and nail to censor it. Thank God for [[homeschooling]], which has it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Its not the teachers place to lead classroom prayer, it amounts to indoctrination into the teachers faith. Would you accept an athiest sitting before your children and tellng them christianity is false? For those who wish to pray nothing should be done to stop them, but teachers should always keep their religiouse (and political) views private from their pupils.--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 19:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

: The content and spelling of your statement looks to me like that of an atheist. Suppose everyone in the class wants to pray. Atheists still object, because they're really motivated by a desire to censor expressions of [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::Athiests are bad spellers? [[User:HectorJ|HectorJ]] 22:00, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Atheists tend to have slightly higher math/science skills -- the "scientific wannabes" -- but lower verbal skills. When someone misspells "religious", as Smottram101 did above, it's a telltale sign.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

So i added an e at the end of religious, i'm an athiest? That generalisation is stupider than me miss spelling religious in the first place, there are probably as many exeptions to that claim as there are people on the planet. My point was that it is the role of a teacher to make their students aware of different views, and allow them to decide. When a teacher is leading prayer, with the pupils having to take part or not, they put their view first. It would be just as bad for a teacher to prevent their puils from praying if they chose to do so. Allowing room for religion in schools, but not having any particular view be officially sanctioned, is the way it worked at my school, and everyone was perfectly happy with the policy.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 12:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

"It is the role of a teacher to make their students aware of different views, and allow them to decide."
Do you think schools should present to their students differing views on the origin of life, particularly intelligent design? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:14, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes, different views on the origin on life should be presented, how exactly i'm not sure, that'd be something for the school to decide, but they certainly should be covered.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 11:37, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

: You never answered my point: "Suppose everyone in the class wants to pray." Are you going to?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

No i wouldn't, but i wouldn't do anything to stop them from praying either, and would remain respectful and quiet while they did so. I don't want to censor anyones faith anymore than i want anyone to force a faith upon me.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 12:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

: Then you're fine with classroom prayer when everyone in the class wants to pray?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:29, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I have no problem with students choosing to pray at any time they wish, so long as it doesn't disturb lessons. My objection is if someone is forced into prayer, or if a teacher is leading it, a teacher should keep their religious views private. There are obvious exceptions, like religious schools or church services, but for the most part a teacher should avoid showing their religious views.
--[[User:Smottram101|Smottram101]] 19:30, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

:You seem to be back-pedaling now. The reality is that atheists demand censorship of prayer in the classroom, even if everyone wants to do it. The reason is that atheists want to segregate faith from knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

I have been pondering about something recently. At least three referances that I have seen on this article ( 4-6 to be specific) are blogs written by Conservatives and Christians. I was wondering if we could get someone with sociological credit or someone who works primarily in Socialogy, psychiatry, psychology, or any such area. Because if referances should be used, shouldn't they have factual proof to back it up?
-Genuine question from the user of the name of Tony411

:"Sociology", not "socialogy"; "references", not "referances". And please be substantive in your edits. If you dispute a statement, then please address it substantively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 12 January 2011 (EST)

:Atheists tend to have slightly higher math/science skills -- when someone is or was an engineer, that is a telltale sign. What aren't you telling us, Andy? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 16:24, 21 February 2014 (EST)

==The human rights aspect==

I deleted the [[:category:Human rights]] tag, because it implies that "Teacher-led, state-sanctioned prayer" was a human right - or a matter of [[human rights]]. I think this obscures the issue at best, and could even be a liberal caricature of conservative positions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:11, 21 January 2011 (EST)

:I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But you're the expert, not me :)--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 13:13, 21 January 2011 (EST)

::Before applying the tag, I'd like to see the article clarify just what "[[classroom prayer]]" means. In general, it ought to mean ''any prayer in a classroom''. As such, it should be covered by 2 parts of America's [[First Amendment]]: [[freedom of speech]], as well as [[freedom of religion]].

::On the other hand, state-sanctioned prayer implies that students might have to say "Amen" to a prayer which violates the [[Establishment Clause]]. Suppose a Muslim teacher prays an Islamic prayer, and requires each student to kneel prostrate on a carpet facing Mecca? (An extreme case, admittedly, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's commonly held by conservatives that '''all''' teachers have an unlimited right to "lead their classes" in prayer. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:19, 21 January 2011 (EST)

== A right? ==

Is classroom prayer a right? I believe that prayer, education, and free speech are rights, and Classroom prayer is merely the union of those three rights, so logically is it not a right (despite what the [[Liberal]]s want) as well? --[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 13:12, 21 January 2011 (EST)

The majority of arguments for school sanctioned prayer that are mentioned here is, in my opinion, hypocritical. In a hypothetical situation, if school sanctioned prayer were to be made legal again, and, say, a Wiccan teacher lead a class prayer, it would likely make the news, in which case the members of Conservapedia would probably give the situation a name (such as, "The Wiccan Indoctrination Fiasco") and then proceed to push for either religious discrimination against Wiccans or the re-establishment of the "no school-sanctioned prayer allowed" law. --X. Dulks